Why were the Greeks unable to resist the invasion by the Romans?
The Roman involvement with the Greek world lasted a very long time, and the 'conquest' of the Greek world was a very sporadic process spread out over several centuries which proceeded in fits and starts with setbacks and changes of momentum. For this reason any answer has to be pretty vague. There are, however, several themes that are pretty
Greece was not united. The geographical area of modern Greece was a patchwork of kingdoms, city-states and alliance groupings which was not united by a strong, universally acknowledged government. The most powerful single force in mainland Greek politics as the Macedonian kingdom, which after Alexander was the biggest power in Hellas but frequently faced opposition, rebellion and very grudging cooperation from the older powers (Athens, Sparta, Thebes, Corinth) and newer groups (The Aetolian League and the Achaean League). Macedonian domination was never popular -- the final Roman settlement of Greece was regarded as an improvement by many, particularly local elites who preferred the fairly hands-off rule of Rome to the detailed interference of Macedonians.
Viriatus’s fighting tactics have since been described as the first example of the Spanish guerrilla fighter, and for many Spaniards and Portuguese, he has become an early instance of a “national” hero. A bronze statue now stands in the main square of Zamora (western Spain, on the river Duero) to celebrate his exploits.
The second centre of resistance takes us to the northern part of the Meseta, to Numancia, close to the town of Soria, on the upper stretches of the river Duero. Popular attention tends to focus on the lengthy resistance of the town, although the region itself was in internal turmoil for some 20 years (beginning around 154 and ending with the fall of Numancia in 133).
Numancia has become a legend, according to which --after a siege of more than a year-- its inhabitants, rather than surrender unconditionally, chose to set their city and themselves on fire. History, however, is a little less blind. Although there was a long siege and some of the enfeebled Numancians did die by their own hands, most surrendered. Some fifty were sent to Rome for the triumphal procession, the rest were sold as slaves and the town razed to the ground so that --like Carthage-- its memory might be obliterated.
The conquest of Numancia proved to be very difficult. In Rome, the senators were so angry with their army's lack of success that they sent one of their best generals --Scipio Aemilianus-- to take charge. Scipio came with the highest credentials: an iron disciplinarian, he was already famous for demolishing Carthage in 146 BC. He also came with a huge force, 300 catapults and even 12 elephants.
Scipio quickly moved to impose his will on the soldiers. Merchants and prostitutes were expelled from the camps, and comforts such as beds and hot baths were prohibited. Breakfast was eaten on foot, daily marches in full kit became the norm, ditches were dug and stockades constructed. Only when he was satisfied did Scipio turn his attention to Numancia.
The Romans succeeded materially, but legend has preserved the name of Numancia endowing it with the defiant gesture of mass suicide that has come down as an example of collective will and pride. It is this version that Cervantes adopts in his play, El cerco de Numancia ("The Siege of Numancia"), the climax of which interestingly features a young child, Viriatus, who steals fame from the Romans at the end when he commits suicide.
Although Cervantes’s play might be interpreted as a case of national, i.e. Spanish resistance to a foreign power, it would be a mistake to adopt that view for the Numancians. On the contrary, it could be argued that it is an example of what has been seen as one of the weaknesses of the Spanish character, its centrifugal or separatist tendency in regional terms. It bears keeping in mind that more than half of the soldiers participating in the siege were natives from neighbouring tribes.
The fall of Numancia represents the culmination of the first period of Roman conquest of the peninsula, but it does not mean the end of hostilities. The various tribes, especially the Lusitani and the Celtiberians, proved difficult to control and rebelled several times. Perhaps Rome would have moved more decisively to conquer the rest of the peninsula following the defeat of Numancia, but two major civil wars within the Republic during the first century BC spilled across the Mediterranean onto Spanish soil, embroiling the tribes in battles that were not strictly directed at them. The details of those wars needn’t concern to us other than to remind us of how closely bound Hispania had become to events in Rome. The result of those conflicts was the end of the Republic and the beginning of the Roman Empire under Octavian, better known as Augustus, the first emperor (27 BC-14 AD).
The rise of Augustus coincides with the second and final general phase of conquest of the Iberian Peninsula, directed now against the recalcitrant Celtic tribes of the north west. The decision responded perhaps to a wish to complete control of the peninsula, but equally persuasive was the rich gold deposit located just south of the Cantabrian Mountains. As long as the aggressive Celts of Asturias remained unconquered nearby, they posed a danger to the extraction of the mineral.
The second centre of resistance takes us to the northern part of the Meseta, to Numancia, close to the town of Soria, on the upper stretches of the river Duero. Popular attention tends to focus on the lengthy resistance of the town, although the region itself was in internal turmoil for some 20 years (beginning around 154 and ending with the fall of Numancia in 133).
Numancia has become a legend, according to which --after a siege of more than a year-- its inhabitants, rather than surrender unconditionally, chose to set their city and themselves on fire. History, however, is a little less blind. Although there was a long siege and some of the enfeebled Numancians did die by their own hands, most surrendered. Some fifty were sent to Rome for the triumphal procession, the rest were sold as slaves and the town razed to the ground so that --like Carthage-- its memory might be obliterated.
The conquest of Numancia proved to be very difficult. In Rome, the senators were so angry with their army's lack of success that they sent one of their best generals --Scipio Aemilianus-- to take charge. Scipio came with the highest credentials: an iron disciplinarian, he was already famous for demolishing Carthage in 146 BC. He also came with a huge force, 300 catapults and even 12 elephants.
Scipio quickly moved to impose his will on the soldiers. Merchants and prostitutes were expelled from the camps, and comforts such as beds and hot baths were prohibited. Breakfast was eaten on foot, daily marches in full kit became the norm, ditches were dug and stockades constructed. Only when he was satisfied did Scipio turn his attention to Numancia.
The Romans succeeded materially, but legend has preserved the name of Numancia endowing it with the defiant gesture of mass suicide that has come down as an example of collective will and pride. It is this version that Cervantes adopts in his play, El cerco de Numancia ("The Siege of Numancia"), the climax of which interestingly features a young child, Viriatus, who steals fame from the Romans at the end when he commits suicide.
Although Cervantes’s play might be interpreted as a case of national, i.e. Spanish resistance to a foreign power, it would be a mistake to adopt that view for the Numancians. On the contrary, it could be argued that it is an example of what has been seen as one of the weaknesses of the Spanish character, its centrifugal or separatist tendency in regional terms. It bears keeping in mind that more than half of the soldiers participating in the siege were natives from neighbouring tribes.
The fall of Numancia represents the culmination of the first period of Roman conquest of the peninsula, but it does not mean the end of hostilities. The various tribes, especially the Lusitani and the Celtiberians, proved difficult to control and rebelled several times. Perhaps Rome would have moved more decisively to conquer the rest of the peninsula following the defeat of Numancia, but two major civil wars within the Republic during the first century BC spilled across the Mediterranean onto Spanish soil, embroiling the tribes in battles that were not strictly directed at them. The details of those wars needn’t concern to us other than to remind us of how closely bound Hispania had become to events in Rome. The result of those conflicts was the end of the Republic and the beginning of the Roman Empire under Octavian, better known as Augustus, the first emperor (27 BC-14 AD).
The rise of Augustus coincides with the second and final general phase of conquest of the Iberian Peninsula, directed now against the recalcitrant Celtic tribes of the north west. The decision responded perhaps to a wish to complete control of the peninsula, but equally persuasive was the rich gold deposit located just south of the Cantabrian Mountains. As long as the aggressive Celts of Asturias remained unconquered nearby, they posed a danger to the extraction of the mineral.
Also in 146, a Roman army went against its enemies in Greece. An army of 23,000 infantry and 3,500 cavalry attacked a leading member of the Achaean League, the city of Corinth, defended by 14,000 infantry and 300 cavalry. To warn others, the Romans slaughtered all the men they found in Corinth. They enslaved the city's women and children, and they shipped Corinth's treasures to Italy and burned the city to the ground.
Greek cities hostile to Rome had their walls demolished and their people disarmed. The Romans found Thebes entirely empty of people, its inhabitants having fled to wander through mountains and wilderness. According to the Greek historian Polybius, people everywhere were throwing themselves "down wells and over precipices."
Rome dissolved the Achaean League and had its leaders put to death. Rome's governor to Macedonia became governor also of the entire Greek peninsula. In Greece, Rome would now allow only local city politics dominated by wealthy elites. Any border disputes were to be settled by the Romans. It was the beginning of domination of Greece by foreigners that was last two thousand years.
The Romans emerged from their oppressions as had other conquerors, as agents of their gods and therefore as righteous and honorable.
Achaean League, 3rd-century-bc confederation of the towns ofAchaea in ancient Greece. The 12 Achaean cities of the northernPeloponnese had organized a league by the 4th century bc to protect themselves against piratical raids from across the Corinthian Gulf, but this league fell apart after the death of Alexander the Great. The 10 surviving cities renewed their alliance in 280 bc, and under the leadership ofAratus of Sicyon, the league gained strength by the inclusion of his city, and later other non-Achaean cities, on equal terms.
The league’s activity initially centred on the expulsion of the Macedoniansand the restoration of Greek rule in the Peloponnese. After this was successfully accomplished in about 228 bc, Achaea faced the danger of complete disintegration before the assaults of the Spartan king Cleomenes III, who also aimed at control of the Peloponnese. To counteract the Spartan threat, Aratus allied the league with Macedon, and Antigonus III Doson of Macedon and his troops subdued Sparta, making it a Macedonian ally and renewing the Macedonian hold over Greece (224–221). In the Second Macedonian War, Achaea joined Rome (198) in an alliance against Macedon, and this new policy led to the incorporation of nearly the whole Peloponnese into the Achaean League. But the league’s success eventually resulted in friction with both Sparta (which had been drafted into the league in 192) and with expansionist Rome, and war broke out between the league and Rome in 146 bc. Rome was soon victorious, and it dissolved the Achaean League in 146. A smaller league, however, was set up soon afterward and continued into the Roman imperial age.
At the head of the Achaean League were two generals (strategoi) until a single general was substituted in 255 bc. The general was the annually elected head of the league’s army, and a particular general could not be immediately reelected. The general headed the league’s administrative board, whose 10 members in turn presided over the various city-states’ representative councils and assemblies. These bodies of citizenry could vote on matters submitted to them by the general. The minimum voting age in the assemblies was 30 years of age.
SIMILAR TOPICS
Under the Achaean League’s federal constitution, its city-state members had almost complete autonomy within the framework of the league’s central administration; only matters of foreign policy, war, and federal taxes were referred to the general and the board for decision making.
No comments:
Post a Comment