1

At the close of the second-century BC, Rome had achieved hegemony over the City-

States, Kingdoms, and Tribes of the Mediterranean Sea. She had in turn humbled the

Carthaginians, the Iberian tribes, the city states of Greece, and the Successor Kingdoms of

Macedonia and Seleucia into submission to Rome. Only Gaul of the Long Hairs and the

Kingdom of Egypt remained fully independent realms. The manner by which Rome came into

conflict with the former states and how she came to possess their holdings was often hap-hazard

and unintended. It stands however, that from the final subjugation of the Italian peninsula at the

close of the third-century BC to the close of the second-century BC Rome had come to rule over

an Empire that outdid Alexanders Empire in terms of diversity of peoples. The expansion of the

Republics borders, and the retention of her holdings, must be attributed to the superiority of her

armies and the shrewdness of her interactions with conquered peoples.

Before any examples of battles in which Roman arms triumphed over those of her

enemies, an examination of the Roman army at the time of the middle-republic. The Roman

army that conquered Italy was modeled on that of Classical Greece and as such was armed in the

hoplite fashion, with bronze helmet, greaves, cuirass, a large round shield (clipeus), and spear

(hasta).1 While effective in open battle, the hoplite phalanx was less effective when deployed on

broken ground. Gaps were opened up in the solid and connected line, which allowed an enemy to

cut its way into the ranks and cause enough disorder to force the Phalanx to rout. This was

exemplified at the Battle of Cynoscephalae, the specifics of which will be discussed in depth

latter on. Another weakness of the phalanx was that it did not lend itself to maneuver, allowing

for the possibility of a flank being turned with the result that the center cannot redeploy to meet

the enemy.

1 Livy, The History of Rome, 1.42-44.

 2

The transition from hoplite legion to manipular legion took place during the Third

Samnite War (298-290 BC). Several new pieces of equipment were introduced, and a new

organizational structure put in place. As Nic Fields notes, the round clipeus was replaced with an

oval-rectangular scutum, the hasta with a throwing spear called a pilum, and the division of the

Phalanx into maniples.2 Following these alterations, the typical Legion was constituted as

follows: three-thousand heavy infantry divided into three classes. One thousand two hundred

men of young age, the Hastati, and another one thousand two hundred men of a more advanced

age, the Principes. These two classes were armed with a gladius, scutum, and pilum, with bronze

or mail armour depending on his wealth. Six hundred men of middle age named the Triarii

formed a core of veterans, who were armed with hasta and scutum, along with mail armour. Then

followed one thousand two hundred lightly armed skirmishers called velites, who could only

afford to arm themselves with javelins and a small round shield. Three hundred cavalrymen,

equites, were also attached to each legion, fitting themselves out at heavy cavalry with mail

armour, thrusting spear, and round shield.3 Each year, the Romans would raise four of these

legions from her citizenry, with each Consul for the year being given command of two legions.

These legions were augmented by an equal number of troops, organized in a similar manner to

the Roman legions, levied from cities and communities in Italy that possessed allied status,

effectively doubling the amount of men under arms that Rome could put into the field each

campaign season.

It was armies thusly composed that marched into Sicily, Spain, North Africa, Greece and

Asia Minor for two centuries. The conquests can be roughly divided into two conflicts; one with

2 Nic Fields, Roman Republican Legionary 298-105 BC (Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2012), 11.

3 Polybius, Histories, 6.21-25.

 3

Carthage that lasted for one century, and another that deals with Romes intervention in the

politics of the Eastern Mediterranean for the second century. The Punic Wars, specifically the

first and second, effectively marked the last time the Romans faced a serious threat to their

existence. While the Kingdoms of Macedonia and Seleucia could marshal tremendous forces to

their royal standards, neither power ravaged the Italian peninsula for over a decade or marched

close enough to the eternal city to observe her gates. The titanic struggle between the two

western Republics began almost as an accident, when a band of raiders, who had seized a town

on the north of Sicily that faced the toe of Italy, reached out to the Romans requesting assistance

against a Carthaginian Squadron who had occupied their citadel. The Roman were at a loss, for

these raiders were obviously criminals, however the presence of a Carthaginian held city so close

to their recently acquired territory was deemed to be of the highest risk. A Consul was dispatched

with an army to aid the Mamertines, as the raiders called themselves, and was successful in not

only forcing the Carthaginian garrison to surrender, but defeated in turn a Carthaginian and then

a Syracusan army sent to reverse this reverse. The King of Syracuse, Hiero II, correctly read the

mettle of the Romans and signed a treaty of friendship that would last for the entirety of his long

life providing Rome with the first of her Client-Kingdoms.4

The First Punic War was fought primarily through massive naval battles, and siege and

counter-siege in Sicily. This was a war of many firsts for the Roman Republic; it marked the first

time a Roman army had been deployed outside of Italy, and the first time that Rome has

commissioned a navy. For twenty-three long and costly years, Rome and Carthage put to sea

massive fleets numbering hundreds of warships manned by hundreds of thousands of sailors and

marines, and armies numbering in the tens of thousands. The scale of this conflict is captured at

4 Anthony Everitt, The Rise of Rome: The Making of the Worlds Greatest Empire (New York: Random
House, 2012), 220-222.
 4

the Battle of Cape Ecnomus where three hundred and thirty Roman galleys, man by one hundred

thousand oarsmen and one hundred and twenty thousand soldiers men a Carthaginian fleet of

three hundred and fifty galleys with an equal number of sailors and marines met off the southern

coast of Sicily. In the ensuing battle, the first major naval victory for the Romans, some fifty

thousand men were killed on both sides.5 The second war with Carthage, though intended to be

fought in Spain and North Africa, was instead fought primarily in Italy herself. Hannibal

marched his army from Iberia, into Gaul and across the Alps, into Italy and for over a decade

fought the Romans to a standstill. Such were his abilities, that following three disastrous defeats,

the third of which cost the Romans two double Consular Armies (some eighty-thousand men), it

was decided to avoid battle with the seemingly invincible North African until attrition forced him

to return home.6 Eventually however, an army was dispatched to Iberia and was successful in

driving the Carthaginians from their bases among the Spanish tribes.7 When a Roman army was

dispatched to North Africa to threaten the capital, Hannibal was finally recalled to defend his

homeland. In 202 BC a Roman Army was able, with the help of their newfound ally Masinissa of

Numidia, to finally defeat Hannibal and force peace-terms upon the defeated Punics. Carthage

was forced to give up the remainder of her colonies and became in effect a puppet state of

Rome.8

The horrific casualties incurred in this century-long conflict demonstrate the iron-resolve

of the Romans, who were willing to sacrifice tens of thousands of their sons to Mars if it would

5 Everitt, The Rise of Rome, 227.

6 Everitt, The Rise of Rome, 260-263.

7 Everitt, The Rise of Rome, 264-269.

8 Everitt, The Rise of Rome, 271.

 5

purchase victory. Indeed, the conflict with Carthage was won not so much by the superiority of

Roman arms or leadership, but by their willingness to simply outspend their opponents in terms

of that most valuable commodity. This is in contrast to the subsequent conflicts that Rome would

enter into in the East, where the superiority of the manipular legion over the Macedonian phalanx

would be proven. Since the campaigns of Philip II that ended in the subjugation of the city-states

of Greece, the Macedonian phalanx was lauded as the most effective battlefield formation in the

Hellenic world. The mass of men wielding fourteen cubit (twenty-one feet) pikes was deemed to

be impenetrable to frontal assault.9 However at Cynoscephalae (197 BC), Thermopylae (191

BC), Magnesia (190 BC), and finally Pydna (168 BC), Roman legions defeated the Macedonian-

style phalanx, as the maniples were able to make use of the gaps in the enemy line caused by

broken and uneven ground. One inside these holes, the maniple was able to cut its way deep into

the phalanx, causing it to panic and rout.

To maintain this vast territory, the Republic turned to two governing models. The first

was to organize the territory as a province which would be entrusted to a governor who would be

granted the rank of proconsul. He, along with an assigned quaestor, would be responsible for not

only taking in the required tribute and taxes owed to the treasury, but to maintain the defences of

the province and ensure any local tribes remain pacified. Here there was a possibility for

personal enrichment, as loot and slaves won during a campaign were spoils of war. Another

method was to seek out some local potentate and grant him the protection of Rome, deferring

much of the cost of administering a territory while retaining a steady tribute and local ally. This

latter option was preferred when it was possible and did in fact yield surprising results. Two

previously mentioned individuals provide excellent examples; Hiero and Masinissa.

9 Polybius, Histories, 18.29.

 6

King Hiero II of Syracuse, once committed to an alliance with Rome at the beginning of

the First Punic War, remained a most faithful and helpful ally to the Senate and People of Rome

for the entirety of his life. The series of campaigns undertaken by Rome in Sicily during the hard

years of the first war would not have been possible were it not for the constant supply of materiel

provided by Hiero.10 In a final act of service, Hiero maintained the grain supply from Sicily and

secure it from Carthaginian aggression for the first few years of the Hannibalic War, allowing

Rome to respond to the threat of Hannibals army in Italy. When he finally died in 215 BC after

forty-eight years of staunch support for Rome, a series of coups led to the betrayal of the treaty

of friendship between Rome and Syracuse and Rome was forced to divert valuable legions to

pacify the now rebellious island.11The story of Masinissa and his friendship with Rome draws

many parallels with that of Hiero. His first contact with Rome was hostile, serving in Iberia

against Publius Cornelius Scipio (latter to earn the cognomen Africanus), and was eventually

brought into alliance with the Romans through the promise of the Kingdom of Numidia. He

provided invaluable service at the Battle of Zama which brought an end to Hannibals war for

good. Again like Hiero, for the entirety of his long life he provided a stable ally in North Africa

that the Romans could count on in times of war and instability.12

The Romans were perhaps singularly unique among their contemporaries in their

willingness to make terrible sacrifices to their state. They endured twenty years of naval disasters

that cost over one hundred thousand lives, and a decade of a hostile army rampaging and

pillaging its way throughout Italy. It was not simply a willingness to endure painful casualty lists

10 Nigel Bagnall, The Punic Wars 264-146 BC, 42-44.

11 Bagnall, The Punic Wars, 60.

12 Everitt, The Rise of Rome, 271-273.

 7

that won Rome her empire. When they met the finest military machine known to the civilized

world, Roman legions cut their way through that invincibility and cast the superiority of the

armies of the Successor Kingdoms into the trash-bin of history. The administration of her newly

won empire also deserves admiration, for while it was certainly susceptible to exploitation Rome

was remarkably welcoming to the conquered peoples they now ruled over. Taking in account the

above, it follows that the Roman Republic was uniquely placed to triumph over all that crossed

her path and establish an empire that has had a lasting impact on the west.