>Nowhere is Hannibal's failure to understand Roman culture

File: g_discus_thrower.jpg (278KB, 457x465px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 457x465px

>>1618713
Autistic barbarians. Once they had annihilated the noble and heroic civilizations around them, the Romans set about stealing the cultural achievements of better Empires. Since the other Empires were eviscerated, the Romans could happily claim that the other civilisations' achievements were, in fact, Roman!

They became so arrogant that they abandoned the Greeks and began the Roman Empire, regressing into their old barbaric ways again. They colonized Gaul and Britannia, making out that this was somehow a great feat. It was nothing compared to the Punic wars bt from then on the majority of Romans spend the centuries screaming "WE WUZ HELLENIC AN SHIET". Only a few good Emperors humbled themselves before Greece and Carthage. The Emperors only kept their fragile sanity by deluding themselves into believing that the USA- erm I mean, the Roman Empire had some "destiny" to dominate the world, and that they were Gods. Ofc the Roman Empire descended into turbo-autism after the good Emperors were gone.

The Aspergers continued with the ERE Byzantines. They wuz Romans dat wuz Greeks n shit.

When I was 7 I thought the Romans were "cool". I grew up, did you?

>>1618799
Well... all the drama aside, I know that the Romans did have a lot of their identity rooted in Hellenic culture, but it seems in so many ways they defined themselves as being something of an antithesis to Greek culture as well. Namely what I said above about customs and practices in war. Also their belief that they were descended from the Trojans, whom they saw as nobler and more honest people than the somewhat perfidious and clever Greeks. From what I understand, they regarded the Greeks as people who created a lot of great things that were useful, but lived in a vile and decadent society (yes, I understand the hypocrisy of one thinking Greeks were decadent and Romans werent).
I dont think the Romans were faultless, but I certainly think they are afforded a lot more credit than being called autistic barbarians. For better or worse, they have contributed a great many things to Western Civilization. Dont you?

File: t_Eastern_Roman_Empire.png (216KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 500x375px

>>1618713
That's actually a very interesting question.

One could look at the origins of Rome itself, a story of Romulus and Remus, Romulus going so far as to kill his brother over a disagreement.

Maybe it has to do with the culture of the local tribes that would unite to create the greater tapestry that became known as Rome.

But they certainly had a unique look on war with no half measures and its something that nobody at the time could comprehend. Rome would never play second fiddle to somebody else. They either won completely or they would be destroyed completely. But they would never negotiate with barbarians at their gate.

Perhaps it had to do with the unique ability to continue throwing manpower at a problem until it simply ceased being a problem. In a time when one or two armies was all that a people could muster and if it lost, that was the end, Rome could lose 4 armies and still have the manpower to raise a fifth, a sixth, and a seventh to throw at the enemy until they won. It made fighting them nearly impossible due to attrition taking its toll and once your army broke, there simply was no way to form another in time to stop the roman threat.

But I can't say which came first, the outlook or the manpower. And to fast forward I wonder if this mentality eventually led to the fall of the West and its abandonment to the continuation of the East. When it came time to negotiate, the Western Emperors (Honorius especially) failed to recognize the severity of the threats they faced and their own weakness to stop them.

While the East fully recognized the costs of such a harsh stance and simply decided to pay their problems away.

Anyway, I'm rambling here OP but thanks for a good thread.

>>1618799
>I grew up
Judging by your post you didn't, son

>>1618713
>The Romans seem to have been the first to take a "total war" approach whereby the end is only determined by absolute destruction or subjugation of either side.
Nope.

The concept of wars for annihilation predated Rome and was present in many societies. Assyria and Warring States of China come to mind. Sun Tzu after all said "war is a matter of life and death for a state" and he was talking of warfare in the warring states.

>>1618861
no

>>1618881
Thanks for an amazing response honestly.

Its really puzzling to me honestly. I feel like it is one of history's great questions. So much of what they did was so bizarre and different from everyone around them. I feel like a lot of good work needs to be done on figuring out what gave rise to these deep differences. I think that Rome really was "hellenic" superficially.

>>1618713
>So /his/, why exactly did Rome such a different approach to warfare than all others surrounding them historically that generally took the Hellenic approach (win or lose decisive battle, then negotiate peace)? The Romans seem to have been the first to take a "total war" approach whereby the end is only determined by absolute destruction or subjugation of either side. What about their culture, geography, history, etc was it that made these bastards so tough, brutal, and stubborn?

THE RADICAL SPIRIT OF ABSOLUTE VICTORY, OR ABSOLUTE FAILURE, AMONG SOUTHERN EUROPEANS, WAS A DORIAN TRAIT WHICH FIRSTLY MANIFESTED WITH THE SPARTANS, AND LATER WITH THE ROMANS.

IT IS THE ATTITUDE OF THOROUGHNESS CHARACTERISTIC OF ARYANIDS PEOPLES.

>>1618893
ahhhhh right. Assyria. I totally forgot. Perhaps let me rephrase. In its ecosystem (that being the Mediterranean region mostly dominated by Hellenic practices and customs extending beyond Greece itself, into Carthage, parts of Italy, and even the Iberian Peninsula) Rome seemed to have developed this completely different and severe approached to war, where it was extremely out of place.

>>1618907
anything to say beyond that?

>>1618799
>The Emperors only kept their fragile sanity by deluding themselves into believing that the USA- erm I mean, the Roman Empire

Now that's some grade A butthurt there.

>>1618945
Too much autism in what should be a good and scholarly thread.

>>1618799
>drawing any kind of Rome-USA parallel

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>1618926
Kys retard

>>1618926
your really are the worst poster here

>>1618713
I believe it is rooted in their approach to law. For example, before the Punic Wars the Roman Republic had all manner of laws up to and including the Lex Aquilia.

In brief, Romans understood disputation completely, and they still have a huge influence on contemporary codes of law, both Common and Civil.

They knew what they were doing when thinking that you need to win the war before you negotiate peace.

Their brilliant understanding and experience in geopolitics and "imperialism before it was cool" meant they knew that military strategy is always active, both in peace and war, it does o't have an "Off" switch - and more importantly, that peace negotiations are just another act of war, with its objectives, requirements in terms of men and equipment, financial costs, tactics, and risks.

>>1619167
>does not have
derp

>>1619093
>falling for it

>>1618713
This is what Germany should've done in the First World War desu

>>1618713

I'm guessing here, but if you look at the development of Hellenic warfare in Greece proper, you see the development of relatively isolated city-states in areas that are easily defensible, and relatively small populations.

Just because you defeated the enemy army in the field doesn't mean you can put an end to their Polis. In fact, you probably couldn't, what with the proliferation of walls everywhere and the relatively unadvanced siegecraft techniques until the Peloponesean war or so.

So you didn't push on until the utter destruction of your enemy, because it was really hard to do so, even if you've "won", and if you did somehow manage to get in and smash up their city, what then? Just killing everyone won't really net you much profit unless you have the surplus population to recolonize their areas, which you probably didn't. And even if you did, it's a pretty good bet that a few decades down the line, your new outpost is going to declare independence from you anyway.

Greek City-States didn't really have the ability to capitalize on their conquests to directly annex new territory easily. So, when they fought, they didn't really try to utterly demolish, conquer, and annex, they just levied a fine and called it a day.

Rome always had a different civic spirit, although I admit, I don't know the particulars very well. But when they did win wars, they could utterly destroy their enemies as political powers, replace them with Romans, and have a reasonably loyal community outside the city of Rome itself. They had something to gain by this all or nothing approach, in a way that previous Hellenics (Macedonians aside, who played according to similar rules) didn't.

>>1619266
One important reason rome could expand is their concept of citizenship was much more flexible than Greeks.

They granted nearby Latin states rights early on, and they recognized the citizenship of their allied states at various levels.

Greeks wouldn't even let immigrants who had lived in the city for generations obtain citizenship

Sounds like Germany.

>>1619296

Rome had a concept of a "true Roman", a good citizen that followed all the laws, all the customs, was transparent in business and faithful in love, a pious, intelligent, strong paragon of city life. Anyone could be a true Roman, which is why the best Emperors were from the provinces after a point.

Rome's culture trascended ethnicity or breed, it was born from a city of allied tribes, evolved to a state of allied cities, to an empire of allied provinces. It was always meant to be inclusive and to create an amalgam between different people.