What caused the Roman expansion during the Republic?

[Risbinroch]

What do you think? I'm working on a paper here and could need some inspiration/input. I personally believes that it was when the Celtics conquered, plundered and burned Rome in 400-387 BC that the Roman mind was set on an "offensive-defensive" mind - to conquer new potential enemies before they could do you any wrong, if you understand my english... As I see it, that was the single most important event to trigger the Roman expansion.

[Terje]

I've always been of the mind that the thing that drove expansion was expansion itself.

Meaning: Once the first conquests had taken place (those I don't know the origin of; it was most likely an attempt to secure the borders), slaves and other kinds of plunder strted flooding into Rome.
This made the rulers think "Hey! Loot! We want more of that!" And so they continued their all-out attack.

Soon, the entire Roman economics was based on slave labour (allegedly one of the reasons the Romans never made any great inventions; they just left all the heavy work for the slaves...), and in order to expand this economy ("Much wants more"; old Norwegian proverb) they needed more slaves, which required more conquests, and in order to make the administration of the conquered areas run smoothly, they needed more slaves, etc.
A so-called 'evil circle'...

At least, this is what I learned at school. It could very well be wrong

[bombshoo]

You are both somewhat right I think..It was alot like Manifest Destiny in the early United States. They believed that they were almost doing the conquered a favor by "Romanizing" them, I think they also thought of it as their gods's will too, Maybe since they thought of themselves as descendents of the Trojans, they thought they had the right to become a power again.

[storealex]

There is many many reasons. Caesar for an example conquered Gaul for his own personal gain, not for Rome. Egypt was conquered out of sheer pride and arrogance.

[Xen]

A)the Romans during thier first conquests took control of the areas around them for expediency; thier goal was the security of the people of Rome, by any mean sneeded, and if this mean conqoring apeople after they had attakced Rome, then so be it.

B) after the steam rollign fo empire came abotu the romans indeed adopted the same manifest destiny the th epeople fo the United States would adopt; it was ordained by the Iupiter that the Romans woudl conqoure the world as long as they stayed pious and true to the Gods (obviouslly, this didnt happen)

C)Terjes statement is correct, but the slave resources were what kept Rome raidnig the germanic tribes (oh yes, rome had quit e along history of beign just as much the {pirate raider" as the vikings would in later eras, except in this case, ti was the civlized raiding the barbaians, not the other way around)

it is also one of the big facotrs of the collpse of the roman state (of course, if the land reforms of Tiberius gracchus ha dbeen passed, its lieklly rome wouldnt have grown intot he slave dependent power that it eventually turned into)

[SanPellegrino]

Originally Posted by storealex

There is many many reasons. Caesar for an example conquered Gaul for his own personal gain, not for Rome. Egypt was conquered out of sheer pride and arrogance.

both conquest happened near to emperor time when Rome was already a superpower, not in the republic.

I think their expansion wasn't too impressive in the early years, they were a medium power among others till the punic wars. but if there is one thing why the roman republic was a success, I think it was their ability to put away defeats and learn from them.

[Xen]

Originally Posted by SanPellegrino

both conquest happened near to emperor time when Rome was already a superpower, not in the republic.

I think their expansion wasn't too impressive in the early years, they were a medium power among others till the punic wars. but if there is one thing why the roman republic was a success, I think it was their ability to put away defeats and learn from them.

Rome was a functioning republic during both conquests, and was a military superopower, but not an economic one (yet)

[Cuivienen]

Originally Posted by Xen

Rome was a functioning republic during both conquests, and was a military superopower, but not an economic one (yet)

A Republic? Arguably. A functioning Republic? Not by a long shot. The Roman Republic was thoroughly defunct by the time Julius Caesar came along.

[Xen]

Originally Posted by Cuivienen

A Republic? Arguably. A functioning Republic? Not by a long shot. The Roman Republic was thoroughly defunct by the time Julius Caesar came along.

dam strigh tit was a function republic. the civli wars had ensure dthat for the last few years that it was around, thie rwant enough opposition in the senat eot make it a disfunctioning republic. true, it was harldy livng up tot he ideals of the rpeublic; but then th epopulares party wa sin power, and they had the general approval of the common citizens, meanign that they were the the popuarlly sanctioned party in power.

[bigmeat]

what i don't understand is how rome seemed to be able to take on the carthaginians so easily

[Terje]

I never got the impression that the conquest of Carthage was very easy ...

But if it was, it could be related to the fact that for the main part, the Carthagians were traders; not warriors...

[storealex]

It took three wars for Rome to conquer Cartharge. Not what I would call easy. Hannibal gave the Romans the sour taste of defeat, but eventually taugt Romans to rely more on tactics. Scipio defeated Hannibals brother with Hannibals own tactic...

Only in Rome: Total war, is the conquest of Cartharge easy.

[Squonk]

Conquest - glory and personal gains for generals,
land or/and loots for soldiers, great land ownerships for the senators to use from ager publicus not divided.

[bombshoo]

Yes, Carthrage, had been hugely difficult for Rome. The Romans probaly were'nt in greater danger of being wiped out until the Huns..Carthrage was a nation of traders your right, but they were also extremly brilliant warriors...Espeically good navymen..They were the dominant power in the West Medditerrianian after all.

Rome Total War definatly over simplified that, except for war elephants being a pain...

[Terje]

Did the Carthagians ever threaten the Romans militarily speking before the Punic wars?
Who was the aggressor in those conflicts?

The things I've read indicated that it was the Romans who were aggressors, but Norwegian schoolbooks tend to be a little biased in favour of the under-dog/loser...

[SanPellegrino]

Originally Posted by Terje

Did the Carthagians ever threaten the Romans militarily speking before the Punic wars?
Who was the aggressor in those conflicts?

The things I've read indicated that it was the Romans who were aggressors, but Norwegian schoolbooks tend to be a little biased in favour of the under-dog/loser...

IIRC, it started because both had vital interests on Sicily

[Terje]

So it was the Syracuse area that was the center for the dispute?

[Squonk]

Romans are the obvious agressors.
They signed treaties with Carthago which made Sicily Carthaginian sphere of influence. But when opportunity appeared, and they had no-one other to fight with since they reached the sea, they allied with Mamertines from Messana breaking the same alliance with Carthago and declaring war against it. The same with Sagunt later - Sagunt was in Carthaginian sphere of influence, but Romans allied with it so that they could declare war against Carthaginians. The same happened many times, like with Campanians - Romans were allied with Samnites, but broke their alliance and declared war by allying with their enemies.
There was just one time before I century BC that Roman people, asked if war should be started, said: no, and it was just after the end of exhausting II Punic war, and they changed their mind soon.

[crazyluke2001]

The whole reason behind Roman military superiority was their excellent training, discipline and tactics. Also, Rome had a much superior education compared to the rest of the world at the time.

The Romans most famously used their "turtle" legionary formation whielt eh barbarian enemies just ran right onto Roman pilums.

[Terje]

If we are to discuss Roman tactics, it should be said that the main flaw with the Roman army, a flaw that cost the Empire a lot in later years, was the total lack of cavalery. The only cavalery the Romans could deploy, was some rag tag horsemen that their "vassels" made availible to them.
This weakness was showed in particular when mounted barbarian tribes with a minimum of organization of ranks attacked them in the later stages of the Empire.