
Rome vs Greece: a clash of empires - ascertain
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/rome-vs-greece-a-little-known-clash-of-empires-1.3523821
======
RcouF1uZ4gsC
>After a few weeks of marching and countermarching by Philip and Flamininus in
central Thessaly, battle was joined (almost by accident) at Cynoscephalae,
hills known as The Dogs’ Heads. Invincible on flat ground as long as its
flanks were protected, the phalanx was dangerously exposed on hillsides.
Highly manoeuvrable, veterans of the Hannibalic war, the legionaries wreaked a
terrible slaughter.

One of the big factors at Cynoscephalae and later at Pydna was the extreme
flexibility and how much initiative junior officers had. At Cynoscephalae, the
turning point of the battle came when a junior Roman officer saw that one of
the halves of the phalanx was still forming up, and immediately sent Roman
units against that unready part of the phalanx, routing them, and then
crashing down on the rear of the other part of the phalanx that was actually
winning against the Romans. At Pydna, Lucius Aemilius Paullus the Roman
commander was able to give the general order to exploit the gaps, and let the
various unit commanders implement it.

The combination of Roman training combined with the tactical flexibility stood
Rome in very good stead for centuries.

As an aside, it is not necessarily the unit, but the commander who knows how
to put it to great use that matters. Alexander the Great used an army of which
the core was the phalanx to win battles over many, many types of terrain. He
knew how to use the phalanx well in combination with calvary and light
infantry to devastating effect.

~~~
agumonkey
I just watched a documentary about the franco-prussian war, and they said that
'lower rank initiative' was a factor in the outcome. French weren't really
wanting to fight, Prussian were. They would try everything to make a
difference, even if it meant disobeying orders somehow.

~~~
GuardianCaveman
Which documentary?

~~~
agumonkey
this
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DhbgJJ_M1s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DhbgJJ_M1s)

seems for the UK

------
staunch
It's likely that Alexander would have taken over Italy had he lived a couple
more decades. He definitely could have done it. Rome was not yet the
powerhouse it became and he knew how to lead an army better than literally
anyone in history. There were many Greek colonies in Italy but the whole
peninsular might have become dominated by Greeks.

By the time Rome got around to taking over Greece it wasn't even a contest.
It's actually lucky that the Greek states weren't unified into a force
powerful enough to be an existential threat to Rome. It would have likely
suffered the same fate as Carthage. Instead it essentially got colonized and
incorporated into the Roman empire in a way that could be called a co-equal
merger. Rome kind of became Greece v2.

History is full of civilizations that fought bravely against invaders and were
destroyed. It's also full of examples of civilizations that surrendered and
thrived. It's a hard pill to swallow that "cowardly" surrender can often be
objectively better than "stubborn" bravery. One of the big facts of history
that blew me away.

~~~
paganel
> It's a hard pill to swallow that "cowardly" surrender can often be
> objectively better than "stubborn" bravery

One old saying around these parts of the world (Romania) can be translated
roughly like this: "The bowed head doesn't get cut by the sword", which
explains like at least half of our history, seeing as we've never been a major
regional power while being surrounded by 3 empires for at least a couple of
centuries (the Ottomans, the Russians, the Habsburgs) and we still managed to
keep a certain level of autonomy throughout the centuries. The Poles were a
little bit more courageous than us and that attitude saw their country split
into three.

~~~
Ralfp
> The Poles were a little bit more courageous than us and that attitude saw
> their country split into three.

This is very simplistic way to describe reasons behind partitioning of Poland,
which was by then standards very large multiethnic country with borders from
Baltic to Black Sea and ability to raise considerable military power to defend
its borders in times of need.

Commonwealth's dissolution came from the inside. There was no centralization
of power in Poland. King was de-facto figurehead with real power being divided
between hundreds of nobles. Everybody else was professionalizing their
military, but that was impossible to do in Poland because we were 18th century
country that relied on King rallying nobles rallying their bannermen for
military. There was no chain of command, grand strategy or even unified
arsenal. That was ridiculous but nobles wanted it to stay that way so king or
congress could never contest their power. What happened instead was country
being partitioned and nobility getting the boot from new rulers that did not
tolerate private kingdoms, private armies or having to negotiate with every
single noble if they wanted to change something.

~~~
selimthegrim
"having to negotiate with every single noble if they wanted to change
something"

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto)

------
lou1306
Irony was a double-edged sword in this case. Sure, the Greek city-states were
now subject to Rome. On the other hand, Roman civilization was deeply affected
by Greek culture, which was arguably far superior. Horace said it best:
_Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit_ (once defeated, Greece conquered its
savage captor)

~~~
rossdavidh
Similar statements (which I am not historian enough to judge the accuracy of)
regarding the Chinese and the Mongols. The Mongols won militarily, and were
turned into a culturally Chinese empire, in the east at least. Again, I am not
historian enough to say if this is accurate, but it is a common assertion.

~~~
_emacsomancer_
In the West (at least some of them, the future Mughals), they were Turkified,
then Persianised, then Indianised.

------
acjohnson55
I highly recommend the podcast The History Of Rome, which talks about this
conflict in some detail. I binged the almost 80 hours of it. I couldn't get
enough! Then, I got sucked in to the podcast The Fall Of Rome, which is
equally fantastic.

[http://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/](http://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/)

[https://fallofromepodcast.wordpress.com/](https://fallofromepodcast.wordpress.com/)

~~~
muro
There is also "Normans" and "12 Byzantine Emperors".

~~~
acjohnson55
Excellent! Adding those to my list.

------
beat
For an interesting coarse overview of this stuff, I've been reading _The Silk
Roads: A New History of the World_ , by Peter Frankopan. It's a sprawling
world history, from earliest recorded history to the present (I'm currently
between WWI and WWII), based on the idea that the Orient (particularly the
Eastern Mediterranean basin over to present-day India), not Europe, is the
historic center of civilization. Northern/Western Europe was an impoverished,
uninteresting backwater until the discovery of the New World (which
precipitated a major economic shift, thanks to the tremendous gold reserves
that Spain exploited, affecting world currency markets).

The author makes interesting arguments that the area is the center of
civilization even in modernity. For example, he argues that the main cause of
WWI was British fear of a resurgent Russia taking India from them - not German
aggression, as is commonly understood by Eurocentric views of history.

At any rate, the book is full of epic, sweeping battles, the ebb and flow of
great cities like Constantinople and Baghdad, the rise and fall of empires.
Highly recommended if you like this stuff!

~~~
eksemplar
Northern Europe wasn’t the impoverished, uninteresting backwater though. It
had a rich culture that interacted with the Orient through Russian rivers.
Central Africa did as well, and is another forgotten story, but at the time
the Greeks invented democracy, the largest city of the time was thriving in
central Africa, a city that wouldn’t be out done population until after
Augustus was long dead.

History is full of stuff like that. The key difference is that these regions
didn’t keep written track and have left only archeology, but in Europe most of
that didn’t keep because other people lived on it after wards.

The earliest written accounts about Northern Europe are Christian accounts
that were written almost 400 years after the Vikings discovered America. While
it’s not incorrect to theorize that there is nothing because there was
nothing, it’s important to keep in mind that we still don’t know how
Stonehenge was build.

~~~
yareally
Which city in Central Africa?

~~~
smcl
They could be referring to Benin City

~~~
yareally
Benin City came about during the European Middle Ages though, no? They were
referring to a city in ancient Greek times

------
everdev
> Invincible on flat ground as long as its flanks were protected, the phalanx
> was dangerously exposed on hillsides. Highly manoeuvrable, veterans of the
> Hannibalic war, the legionaries wreaked a terrible slaughter.

It's amazing how much terrain has affected the arc of history.

~~~
photojosh
I've just finished McCann's 1491 and on to 1493, about pre- and post-Columbian
Exchange, respectively. Something that stood out was the commentary on why
Americans never invented the wheel (given they independently invented
agriculture and government)... and the answer was exactly that; terrain. Plus
lack of horses... when you have llamas instead, you build your empire's
"roads" for walking, not for carriages.

------
danielvf
Here’s a view on the ever popular Legion vs Phalanx debate, written from the
Greek side by someone alive during the war:

[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%...](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0234%3Abook%3D18%3Achapter%3D31)

~~~
danielvf
Here's part II

[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%...](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0234%3Abook%3D18%3Achapter%3D32)

------
jake-low
My public-school education (in the US) definitely never taught the subject. My
history classes were divided into clearly-delineated "units" of study with no
overlap. "First let's learn about Mesopotamia. Agriculture, Hammurabi, etc.
Now recite what you learned on a test. Good, now we're moving on. Greece.
City-states, marble statues, Olympics. Another test. Moving on. Rome..."

My "Earth Science" class was structured the same way. We learned about the
formation of the solar system, then dinosaurs, then Cro-Magnon Man. Each unit
of study was so completely separate from the others chronologically that it
never occurred to me to ask "So did Greece and Rome ever have wars?" for the
same reason it never did to ask "How did early homonids fight off dinosaurs?".
It seemed so obvious at the time that there was no overlap.

Anyway, if I have a point, it's this: never underestimate the inadequacy of
the US primary education system.

~~~
existencebox
I normally try not to make low effort comments but this resonated so strongly
with me I had to chime in with a "ME TOO."

I _LOVE_ history now. I collect antique history books, just to see how
perceptions changed over time. Ken Burns tops hollywood in terms of "# of
films watched" by many times over. However, this only started MUCH later in my
life when I started to see history as a tool, a way of thinking, of reasoning
about the world.

History as it was taught in my early schooling was not only useless, it was
utterly counterproductive; As you say: memorizing slabs of rote dates and
events not only removed any utility or holistic understanding from the facts
(and related time periods), but convinced me that I "hated history" and should
avoid the subject like the plague. Arrogantly, I was one of the better
students in my high-school, so I can only imagine what the less advantaged
crowd felt about those courses, and it doesn't leave me surprised with the
"lack of historical context and appreciation" I feel to be pervasive in the
American population.

To truncate this rant: History is _so fucking amazing_ when you start to
consider it as an interplay of human pathologies, and as a tool for
understanding our present. It's such a frustration that our education system
doesn't do it justice.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Well... as a tenth-grader, say, I wasn't actually in a position to understand
history the way I do now. Teaching me a bare-bones framework was perhaps the
best they could do, which gave me a place to hang the detail that I learned
later.

~~~
existencebox
That's the sad part for me, there was 0 "Framework" learning. It was 100% rote
memorization, usually for a standardized test. (As I've said in other threads,
it wasn't until college that I really "Learned how to learn.")

A bare-bones framework, to my older eyes, would teach you to ask about
incentives, to look at the zeitgeist of the times, to ask "what's the
precedent," and might establish a motivation for this in showing the
predictive power of history, or its utility in comprehending current
situations. Unfortunately, all of those were long-post-primary-schooling
revelations. While I may not have had the context or appreciation I do now, my
schooling did almost nothing to move me in that direction.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
That would be a framework for thinking about history, which isn't what I
meant. I'm not sure I was ready for that in tenth grade. (I suppose it might
have opened the door to some new thoughts, but I don't think I would really
have gotten it.)

By "framework" I meant just the bare outlines of history: Egypt, the Fertile
Crescent, then Greece, then Rome, then the Middle Ages, then the Renaissance,
then the Industrial Revolution... Having that "outline" put me in a position,
later, as I learned more, of seeing how the details fit into the (very coarse)
outline, and thereby learning more outline.

What you're asking for is also totally necessary if one wants to understand
history as more than just a collection of facts. And I suppose that even in
grade school, history would make more sense if you told them that things
happened for reasons, they didn't just happen. You'd have to really simplify
the reasons, though...

~~~
woodandsteel
I agree you need a bare-facts framework. But you also need to make it
interesting, in part so the students will keep studying on their own.

Now that should be interesting, since history is full of so many things that
human beings find fascinating. Unfortunately, the educators generally manage
to make it boring.

------
mr_toad
We still use the term Phyrric Victory nearly 2300 years after the famous war
that spawned the term.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_War](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_War)

------
everydaypanos
I live in Northern Greece/Macedonia and I can confirm that we were never
taught history with this level of detail.

It seems so fascinating to me that if you focus hard enough to a simple
sentence of a modern history book you can uncover battles and kings and
strategies and winters and politics.

~~~
StavrosK
As a fellow Macedon, I concur. Ancient history was kind of glossed over,
although I'm not sure if you can call three years of ancient history "glossing
over". I guess there's just so much to cover.

------
vondur
What's also interesting is how the Romans initially resisted incorporating
Greece and the other Hellenistic kingdoms until they felt that they had to by
the 140's BCE. Also, note that the Romans had no such compunctions on adding
Spain to their holdings after the 2nd Punic War. (the massive amounts of
silver in Iberia probably had a bit to do with it)

~~~
oblio
The Greeks were divided and unruly, a fact known for at least 2 centuries. I
don’t fault the Romans :)

------
dmix
Anyone have any good articles/books on why Greece has never reached greatness
or similar status to other EU powers since the middle ages? Especially given
their influence on the enlightenment, mathematics, philosophy, and Roman
culture itself - which spread throughout the western world.

I've always been curious why they have stagnated so much since and been so...
mediocre.

I guess you could say the same about Macedonia and _maybe_ some middle eastern
areas if we're looking purely at past greatness, but those two seem to be
easier to explain. Greece's impact was more wider, longer, and stronger.

~~~
_dps
The answer is simple, and sad. We (I am Greek) missed out on the Renaissance
and the Enlightenment because we were under the boot of the Ottoman empire for
400 years.

By the time we achieved freedom, we were a backwater too far behind everyone
else in Europe to be competitive.

~~~
dmix
Interesting, I'm sure there's multiple causes but that could certainly
contribute significantly.

------
billfruit
One problem with the topic of Roman and Greek history is that there is too
much of it to cover in a single book. I am forever looking for a single volume
book that covers all the way from the founding of Rome, to the republic years,
to the birth of Christianity, to the dark ages, and eventually to the fall of
Constantinople, with no luck.

Sometimes even amazed that events like the Eastern Roman empire repelled Goths
from Italy, and even managed to occupy Rome proper, for a few brief years,
took place.

------
erikb
I feel like the juicy part of that article is in the last two paragraphs. Like
how was the deal making done, what where the details that made the other city
states submit to the Roman side. If it's really all content there is, then
maybe a Tweet would have been enough.

------
gadders
Surprised there's no mention of Pyrrhus of Epirus. He was a Greek, fighting
Romans and winning (though obviously at heavy cost, hence the term). He was
using the Phalanx system as well.

Hannibal rated him as up there with Alexander as one of the greatest generals
ever.

------
protomyth
A nice short video on the subject
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mE7xTNzdN7Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mE7xTNzdN7Q)

------
cellis
How is this little known? If anything, this is _too known_. What I wish, but
is impossible, is that there were more documented stories of the conflicts of
e.g. Native Americans or Native South Americans, before European Settlers;
early wars in Africa; or wars in the extremes of the Artic between early
tribes. I have listened to all of Dan Carlin's "Hardcore History" ( which any
student of history will fall in love with ), and the only limitation is that
he can only recount histories that are documented, which sadly doesn't extend
to most pre-European-influence civilizations.

~~~
dang
Ok, we've taken 'little-known' out of the title above, to satisfy those who
know more than a little. But let's please switch to something other than the
title now.

------
walshemj
Rome Vs Greece is little known well I never :-) I suspect Mr keen was not
educated by the Cristian brothers.

And I am not so sure that the manipular style was ineffective in a straight
fight. Rome abandoned the phalanx for a reason.

~~~
dmreedy
And later picked up the cohort under the Marian reforms for reasons as well,
especially once the Gauls began hitting them with frontal charges again.

------
emodendroket
I don't know about little-known.

~~~
Spooky23
Schools vary, but usually this conflict isn't really presented much in survey
classes.

The highlights of education on Greece usually focus on Alexander the Great for
a day or two, phalanx, the various figures of Athens, Athens vs. Sparta. Rome
usually is some chat about the origin myth, "they were a republic", the Punic
Wars, specifically Hannibal, Ceasar, transition to empire, random facts.

~~~
acjohnson55
Probably a decent number of people learn about the conflict in passing at
least when the fall of the Macedonian satrapies is discussed, as well as the
final conquest of Sicily, what with Archimedes' death and all.

------
cm2187
World War One, the little known conflict that had a bigger impact on Europe
than you may think... Sure, never heard of ww1. And never heard of the Roman
Empire and it’s invasion of Greece, Egypt and Gaul.

