Geskiedenis Podcasts

Rome sprei haar vlerke uit - territoriale uitbreiding tussen die Puniese oorloë, Gareth C. Sampson

Rome sprei haar vlerke uit - territoriale uitbreiding tussen die Puniese oorloë, Gareth C. Sampson


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Rome sprei haar vlerke uit - territoriale uitbreiding tussen die Puniese oorloë, Gareth C. Sampson

Rome sprei haar vlerke uit - territoriale uitbreiding tussen die Puniese oorloë, Gareth C. Sampson

Die drie Puniese oorloë is waarskynlik die bekendste buitelandse oorloë wat deur die Romeinse Republiek gevoer is (veral die Tweede Puniese Oorlog, met sy beelde van Hannibal, sy olifante en sy verpletterende oorwinning by Cannae), maar in dieselfde tydperk het die Romeine ook hul stryd gevoer eerste oorloë oor die Adriatiese See, en uiteindelik die Galliese stamme van Noord -Italië verslaan, 'n jarelange bedreiging vir die stad Rome self. In hierdie tydperk het Carthago ook probeer herstel van haar nederlaag in die Eerste Puniese Oorlog deur 'n nuwe ryk in Spanje te vestig.

Alhoewel die Puniese oorloë redelik goed gedokumenteer is, word die gapings tussen hulle minder goed bedien. Baie van die oorlewende geskiedenisse jaag oor hierdie tydperke en fokus eerder op die dramatiese botsings met Kartago, en in ander gevalle gaan die gedeeltes wat die gapings tussen die oorloë dek heeltemal verlore (Boek 20 van Livy is miskien die frustrerendste gaping). Die skrywer maak nie aandag aan hierdie probleme nie, en in baie afdelings is die bespreking van die leemtes in die bronne, probleme met die oorlewende bronne en die teenstrydighede tussen mededingende bronne die kern van die bespreking. Hierdie debatte word ondersteun deur aansienlike uittreksels uit die verskillende bronne. Een geringe twis hier - soms word twee of drie verskillende bronne in volgorde gegee, maar dit word slegs geïdentifiseer deur boeknote, wat dit eintlik sonder verwysing maak - deur die skrywer se name na elke bron te plaas, sou hierdie uitstekende benadering meer effektief gewees het.

Ek hou van Sampson se benadering tot hierdie tydperk. Hy volg grootliks Polybius, wie se geskiedenis die beste bron is, maar bring dan alternatiewe weergawes van gebeure in, wat suggereer waar hulle ekstra besonderhede kan verskaf of latere foute kan weerspieël. Ek het gedink ek is baie vertroud met hierdie tydperk, maar ek het nie besef hoe ernstig die Galliërs van Noord -Italië destyds 'n bedreiging vir die Romeinse mag inhou nie, hoeveel moeite die Galliese oorloë gedoen het of hoe naby die Galliërs direk gekom het die stad bedreig - aan die begin van hierdie tydperk het die Romeine amper geen van die Po -valleie in Noord -Italië beheer nie, so hulle mag was beperk tot Sentraal- en Suid -Italië, iets wat ek moet erken dat ek nie besef het nie. Dit is die tydperk waarin Rome die verowering van Noord -Italië voltooi het en een van haar gevaarlikste vyande uit die weg geruim het, en dus van groot betekenis is.

Dit is 'n nuttige boek wat help om 'n leemte in die militêre geskiedenis van Rome te vul, met 'n goeie gebruik van die beperkte bronne.

Hoofstukke
I - Rome voor en na die Eerste Puniese Oorlog (338-218 vC)
1 - Romeinse uitbreiding in Italië en verder (338-241 vC)
2 - Romeinse uitbreiding in die Middellandse See - Sicilië, Sardinië en Korsika (241-218 vC)

II - Romeinse uitbreiding in Italië en die Ooste (238-228 vC)
3 - Romeinse uitbreiding in Italië - Die Galliese en Liguriese oorloë (238-230 vC)
4 - Romeinse uitbreiding in die Ooste - Die Eerste Illyriese Oorlog (230-228 vC)
5 - Kartagoense uitbreiding in Spanje en die Romeinse reaksie (237-226 vC)

III - Romeinse uitbreiding in Spanje en die Romeinse reaksie (237-226 vC)
6 - Die Galliese Oorlog I - Die pad na Telamon
7 - Die Galliese Oorlog II - Die Slag van Telamon (225 v.C.)
8 - Die Galliese Oorlog III - Die Romeinse inval in Noord -Italië (224-223 vC)
9 - Die Galliese Oorlog IV - Die Slag van Clastidium (222 v.C.) en daaropvolgende veldtogte (222-218 v.C.)

IV - Die gevolge van uitbreiding (225-218 vC)
10 - Romeinse uitbreiding in die Ooste - Die Tweede Illyriese Oorlog (219 vC)
11 - Kartagoense uitbreiding in Spanje en die Romeinse reaksie (225-218 vC)

Skrywer: Gareth C. Sampson
Uitgawe: Hardeband
Bladsye: 224
Uitgewer: Pen & Sword Military
Jaar: 2016



Gareth C. Sampson, Rome sprei haar vlerke: territoriale uitbreiding tussen die Puniese oorloë (Albright)

(Pen & amp Sword, 2016) 278 pp. £ 25,00

'N Paar eeue voor die materiaal vir sy vorige boek oor die nederlaag van Rome teen Persië in Carrhae, vind Gareth Sampson 'n winsgewende studieveld vir hierdie deurdagte en uitstekende werk oor die territoriale uitbreiding van Rome en Kartago tussen die Eerste en Tweede Puniese oorloë, wat daarin geslaag het om die gedrag van beide Rome en Kartago in hul regte konteks te plaas, eerder as om alles wat gedurende hierdie tydperk gedoen is, bloot as 'n voorspel te sien vir Rome se oorlog teen Hannibal. Die skrywer, wat 'n seldsame boeklengte van hierdie tydperk is, slaag daarin om 'n vergete en obskure deel van die Romeinse geskiedenis tot lewe te bring en lesers aan te moedig wat so geneig is om 'n blik op die karige primêre bronne vir die tydperk te neem.

Die erns van die skrywer oor die kritiese maar getroue ondersoek van die bronmateriaal kan verkry word uit die manier waarop die meestal Romeinse en Grieks-Romeinse bronne in die boek behandel word. In die hoofstuk van die boek self word die antieke bronne gereeld aangehaal, selfs al is hulle weergawes blykbaar teenstrydig en vereis hulle fyn hantering. Na die hoofstuk van die boek, wat effens meer as 200 bladsye beslaan, bestee die skrywer verskeie bladsye aan die bespreking van die bestaande en verlore bronne aan beide die Romeinse en Kartagoense kant oor hierdie belangrike, maar duistere tydperk. Hierna bied die skrywer 'n lys van heersers van verskillende belanggebiede, wat die verhaal vertel, nie net die Romeinse konsuls nie, maar ook die konings en koninginne van die Ardiaei, Epirus en Macedon, sowel as die Barcids wat verantwoordelik was vir Kartago se keiserlike uitbreiding in Spanje, bespreek die moontlikheid van heropkoms van die Tribunaat van die Plebs gedurende hierdie tydperk, en ondersoek die omstrede saak van Rome se mannekragkrag van Polybius.

Die hoofinhoud van die boek is nie minder interessant onder studente van die weermag van die Romeinse Republiek nie. Die eerste twee hoofstukke gee verslag van die Romeinse uitbreiding in Italië en daarna voor en na die Eerste Puniese Oorlog, wat die stadige vroeë groei van Rome en die opportunistiese uitbreiding daarvan na Sicilië, Sardinië en Korsika toon onmiddellik na die Eerste Puniese Oorlog. Hierna bespreek die skrywer die Galliese en Liguriese oorloë tussen 238 en 230 vC, die eerste aanval van Rome oor die Adriatiese See in die Eerste Illyriese Oorlog en die Kartago -uitbreiding in Spanje en die reaksie van Rome van 237 tot 226 vC. Vier hoofstukke bespreek die deurslaggewende, maar dikwels verwaarloosde Galliese Oorlog van 228-218 vC, waar Rome se aanvanklike tentatiewe en angstige houding teenoor die gehate Galliërs geleidelik verander het in militêre oorheersing van Noord-Italië. Die laaste twee hoofstukke van die boek behandel die gevolge van uitbreiding in die Tweede Illyriese Oorlog in die ooste en die Romeinse reaksie op verdere Kartago -uitbreiding van Spanje wat die uitbreek van die Tweede Puniese Oorlog tot gevolg gehad het.

Lesers wat 'n historiese werk soos Taken At The Flood van Robin Waterfield waardeer, sal waarskynlik ook hier baie waardeer, met 'n soortgelyke en deurdagte ondersoek van die Romeinse groot strategie of die afwesigheid daarvan, die manier waarop militêre en politieke faktore mekaar beïnvloed het, en hoe die optrede van Rome nie in 'n vakuum beskou moet word nie, maar eerder as deel van 'n groter konteks, insluitend mededingende keiserlike magte soos Kartago en Masedon, sowel as kleiner stadstate en alliansies van stede en waar elke oorlog gevolge en gevolge meebring tot verdere konflik met ou en nuwe vyande. Deur 'n ernstige en waardevolle vertelling te gee van die tyd tussen die Eerste en Tweede Puniese Oorloë, slaag die skrywer verder in die vermyding van Hannibal tot in die boek se materiaal, wat verstaanbaar is, gegewe die neiging van baie studente in die Romeinse geskiedenis om Hannibal as 'n die lotgeval om wie die geskiedenis van die eeu draai, eerder as 'n talentvolle, maar oorspronklik perifere karakter binne die gedagtes en ambisies en planne van die hedendaagse politieke en militêre leierskap van Rome.

Onder die meer waardevolle insigte van die skrywer is 'n herwaardering van sommige van die vergete leiers van die Romeinse Republiek gedurende hierdie tyd, veral die dapper en heldhaftige L. Aemilius Papus, wie se leierskap gelei het tot die vernietiging van die mite van Galliese onoorwinlikheid en selfs meerderwaardigheid in die verloop van 'n enkele massiewe geveg by Telamon. Tog, as 'n diepgaande student van die Romeinse militêre geskiedenis, wys die skrywer skerp daarop aan hoe die aard van die Romeinse politieke bestel met sy kort termyn van leierskap en die toenemende spanning selfs in hierdie vroeë era tussen senatoriese en plebiese belange daartoe gelei het dat Romeinse generaals persoonlike heerlikheid aan die hoof van die leërs of afdelings met af en toe risiko vir skade of verlies vir die Romeinse Republiek as geheel. Verder laat die bespreking van die skrywer nie 'n bespreking van handel en ekonomie, sowel as demografie en logistiek agterweë nie, wat hom meer as bloot 'n gevegstudent toon.

Die resultaat is 'n boek wat die moeite werd is om te lees vir die student van die klassieke Romeinse geskiedenis. Sowel as 'n kritiese herevaluering van die reputasie van die onduidelike leiers van Rome gedurende hierdie tydperk en as 'n boek met 'n groot belangstelling in militêre, politieke en diplomatieke geskiedenis, bied hierdie werk studente van die Romeinse Republiek baie waarde vir sy navorsingswaarde sowel as sy plesier as 'n boek op 'n narratiewe vlak. Sampson skyn 'n lig op 'n donker hoek van die Romeinse geskiedenis en vind Rome bestaan ​​in 'n ingewikkelde wêreld waar dit van 'n Italiaanse moondheid opstaan ​​na 'n streeksmoondheid wat deur ander erken en gevrees word, en wie se optrede om die veiligheid en veiligheid van sy eie ryk en die hantering van sy eie politieke spanning lei tot teenbewegings van die bure en teenstanders, wat 'n ingewikkelde beeld gee van onbedoelde gevolge wat lei tot dekades van voortdurende oorlogvoering en tot die skielike en blywende toename van die Romeinse invloed rondom die Middellandse See, 'n onderwerp wat heel moontlik 'n toekomstige gebied van Sampson se skryfwerk kan wees, gegewe sy duidelike belangstelling in die militêre geskiedenis van die Romeinse Republiek in aangename en goed nagevorsde boeke soos hierdie.


Rome sprei haar vlerke uit - territoriale uitbreiding tussen die Puniese oorloë, Gareth C. Sampson - Geskiedenis

Die twee dekades tussen die einde van die Eerste Puniese Oorlog en die begin van die Tweede verteenwoordig 'n belangrike tydperk in die ontwikkeling van Rome se keiserlike ambisies, sowel binne Italië as daarna. Binne Italië het Rome 'n inval in die Galliërs uit Noord -Italië ondergaan, wat die bestaan ​​van die Romeinse staat bedreig het. Hierdie oorlog het 'n hoogtepunt bereik tydens die Slag van Telamon en die laaste Romeinse oorwinning teen die Galliërs van Italië, wat aan Rome die beheer van die skiereiland vir die eerste keer in haar geskiedenis gegee het. Buiten die oewers van Italië het Rome haar eerste provinsies, in die vorm van Sardinië en Korsika, verwerf, voetstukke op Sicilië en Spanje gevestig en die Adriatiese See oorgesteek om 'n teenwoordigheid op die Griekse vasteland te vestig, wat Rome in die wentelbaan van die Hellenistiese wêreld bring.

Tog word hierdie tydperk dikwels as 'n onderbreking tussen die twee bekendste Puniese oorloë beskou, en elke Romeinse veldtog word skynbaar uitgevoer in afwagting van 'n verdere konflik met Kartago. So 'n siening kyk uit op twee sleutelfaktore wat uit hierdie dekades na vore kom: eerstens dat Rome 'n baie groter bedreiging in die vorm van die Galliërs van Noord -Italië in die gesig staar as wat sy in die Eerste Puniese Oorlog in die tweede plek onder oë gehad het, dat die die fondamente vir Rome en rsquos se oorsese ryk is in hierdie dekades gelê. Hierdie werk poog om die balans te herstel en hierdie oorloë op hul eie te beskou, te analiseer hoe naby Rome in Italië verslaan is en ag die belangrikheid van hierdie dekades as 'n belangrike tydperk in die grondlegging van Rome & rsquos toekomstige ryk.

Oor die skrywer

Na 'n suksesvolle loopbaan in korporatiewe finansies, keer dr Gareth Sampson terug na die studie van antieke Rome en behaal sy PhD aan die Universiteit van Manchester, waar hy tans antieke geskiedenis onderrig. Hy het 'n gedetailleerde studie gemaak van die vroeë Romeinse politieke geskiedenis en veral die politieke amp van die tribunaat van die plebs. Hy is tans besig met 'n studie van die magstryd en die burgeroorlogvoering van die laat Republiek en sy ekspansionistiese beleid in die ooste.

OORSIGTE

Maar as 'n werk wat hoofsaaklik vir 'n gewilde gehoor bedoel is, slaag Sampson daarin om 'n lewendige verhaal van Romeinse uitbreiding van 241-218 voor te stel. & quot

- Res Militares

Kobo Rakuten

Por el momento no hay art ículos en tu carrito de compra.

*Geen verbintenis nie, kanselleer altyd

Beskikbaar el:
Beskikbaar el:

1 oudioboek maandeliks

+ GRATIS proeftydperk van 30 dae

Kry elke maand 1 krediet om in te ruil vir 'n klankboek van u keuse

*Geen verbintenis nie, kanselleer altyd

*Geen verbintenis nie, kanselleer altyd

Beskikbaar el:
Beskikbaar el:

1 oudioboek maandeliks

+ GRATIS proeftydperk van 30 dae

Kry elke maand 1 krediet om in te ruil vir 'n klankboek van u keuse

*Geen verbintenis nie, kanselleer altyd


Oorlogvoering tussen Engeland en Skotland in die laat 13de en vroeë 14de eeu vanaf die Scalacronica

In 1355 word Sir Thomas Gray van Heton, bewaarder van Norham Castle, tydens oorlogvoering met Skotland gevange geneem. Terwyl hy in die kasteel van Edinburgh gehou is, het Thomas begin met die skryf van die Scalacronica, 'n geskiedenis van Engeland tot die bewind van Edward die Derde, met die werk wat eindig in 1362. Die gedeeltes in hierdie vertaling dek 'n paar gebeure waar Thomas se vader, ook genoem Thomas Gray, was betrokke, en die veldtogte en oorlogvoering tussen Edward I en II teen Skotland, insluitend die slag van Bannockburn.

Die genoemde koning Edward [die Eerste] het na Skotland gegaan, die kasteel van Carlaverock belê en dit ingeneem, waarna belegering deur William de Maceith deur John de Menteith naby Glasgow geneem is en voor die koning van Engeland gebring is, wat veroorsaak het dat hy getrek en opgehang is in Londen.

Die koning het veroorsaak dat die stad Berwick omring is met 'n klipmuur, en toe hy terugkeer na Engeland, verlaat John de Segrave Guardian van Skotland. Die Skotte begin weer in opstand kom teen koning Edward van Engeland en verkies John de Comyn tot hul voog en hoof van hul saak. Op daardie tydstip het groot wapengange ontstaan ​​tussen die optogte, en veral in Teviotdale, voor Roxburgh -kasteel, tussen Ingram de Umfraville, Robert de Keith, Skotte en Robert de Hastings, bewaarder van die genoemde kasteel. John de Segrave, voog van Skotland vir koning Edward van Engeland, marsjeer van krag met verskeie magnate van die Engelse optogte in Skotland, en met Patrick Earl van Maart, wat 'n aanhanger van die Engelse koning was, kom hy na Rosslyn, laer om die dorp. , met sy rubriek om hom. Sy gevorderde wag was laer in 'n liga ver in 'n gehuggie. John Comyn met sy aanhangers het 'n nagaanval op die genoemde John de Segrave gedoen en hom in die duisternis ontstel en sy gevorderde wag, wat op 'n verre plek laer opgeslaan het, was nie bewus van sy nederlaag nie, daarom kom hulle die oggend in 'n gevegskommissie na dieselfde plek waar hulle hul bevelvoerder oornag gelos het, met die bedoeling om hul diens te doen, waar hulle deur die aantal Skotte aangeval en gelei is, en Rafe the Cofferer daar vermoor is.

As gevolg van hierdie nuus marsjeer koning Edward die volgende jaar Skotland in, en by sy eerste inskrywing laer opslaan in Dryburgh. Hugh de Audley, met sestig soldate, wat moeilik was om langs die koning te kampeer, het [vorentoe] na Melrose gegaan en in die abdij gaan woon. John Comyn, destyds voog van Skotland, was in die bos van Ettrick met 'n groot aantal gewapende mans, wat die teenwoordigheid van genoemde Hugh by Melrose in die dorp waarneem, val hom snags aan en breek die hekke oop, en terwyl die Engelse in die abdij is gevorm en op hul perde in die hof gemonteer; hulle [die Skotte?] het veroorsaak dat die hekke oopgegooi word, [toe] die Skotte in groot getalle te perd ingekom het, het die Engelse wat op die grond neergedaal het, was min in getal, en het hulle almal gevang of doodgemaak. Die chevalier, Thomas Gray, nadat hy platgeslaan is, het die huis buite die hek beslag gelê en dit gehou in die hoop op redding totdat die huis oor sy kop begin brand het toe hy saam met ander gevange geneem is.

Koning Edward marsjeer vorentoe en hou die Kersfees [1303] in Linlithgow, ry dan deur die hele land Skotland en marsjeer na Dunfermline, waar John Comyn besef dat hy nie die krag van die koning van Engeland kan weerstaan ​​nie, en hom aan die King's#genade, op voorwaarde dat hy en al sy aanhangers al hul regmatige besittings moet herwin, en hulle het weer sy [Edward ’s] leuens geword waarop nuwe instrumente in die openbaar uitgevoer is.

John de Soulis stem nie in tot die voorwaardes wat hy uit Skotland verlaat het nie en gaan na Frankryk, waar hy sterf. William Oliphant, 'n jong Skotse vrygesel, het veroorsaak dat Stirling Castle in garnisoen was, en nie besluit het om toestemming te gee vir John Comyn se voorwaardes nie, maar beweer dat hy van die leeu weghou. Die genoemde koning Edward, wat byna al die mense van Skotland in sy mag en besit van hul vestings gehad het, het voor Stirling Castle gekom, dit belê en aangeval met baie verskillende enjins en dit met geweld en deur 'n beleg van negentien weke geneem! Tydens die beleg is die chevalier Thomas Gray deur die kop onder die oë geslaan deur die bout van 'n springval en het hy op die grond neergeval onder die versperrings van die kasteel. [Dit het gebeur] net toe hy sy meester, Henry de Beaumont, gered het, wat by die genoemde versperrings betrap is deur 'n haak wat uit 'n masjien gegooi is, en was net buite die versperrings toe die genoemde Thomas huurgeld uit gevaar sleep. Die genoemde Thomas is ingebring en 'n partytjie het hom laat begrawe, toe hy op daardie oomblik begin beweeg en om hom kyk, en daarna herstel het.

Die koning het die kaptein van die kasteel, William Oliphant, na die gevangenis in Londen gestuur en die ridders van sy leër laat opstaan ​​voor hulle vertrek aan die einde van die beleg. Nadat hy sy offisiere regoor Skotland aangestel het, marsjeer hy na MS. Engeland, en het Aymer de Valence, graaf van Pembroke, verlaat as voog van Skotland, aan wie hy die woude van Selkirk en Ettrick gegee het, waar die genoemde Aymer by Selkirk 'n pele gebou het en 'n sterk garnisoen daarin geplaas het.

Die volgende afdeling begin in die bewind van Edward die Tweede

Op hierdie tydstip was Thomas de Gray bewaarder van die kasteel Cupar en Fife, en terwyl hy uit Engeland reis van die kroning van die koning na die genoemde kasteel, was Walter de Bickerton, 'n ridder van Skotland, 'n aanhanger van Robert de Bruce, nadat hy die terugkeer van die genoemde Thomas beywer het, het hom met meer as vierhonderd man in 'n hinderlaag geplaas, ter wille van die bedoeling van Thomas, waarna genoemde Thomas gewaarsku is toe hy amper 'n halwe liga uit die lokval was. Hy het nie meer as ses-en-twintig gewapende mans by hom gehad nie, en het besef dat hy nie 'n ontmoeting kon vermy nie. Dus, met die goedkeuring van sy mense, vat hy die pad reguit in die rigting van die hinderlaag, nadat hy sy bruidegom 'n standaard gegee het en hulle beveel om met 'n nie te kort tussenpose agter te bly nie.

Die vyand het op hul perde geklim en gevorm vir aksie, en gedink dat hulle [die Engelse] nie van hulle kon ontsnap nie. Die genoemde Thomas, met sy mense wat baie goed gemonteer was, het spore na sy perd geslaan en die vyand reg in die middel van hul kolom gelaai en baie in die koers op die grond gedra deur die skok van sy perd en lans. Toe kom die leisels op dieselfde manier terug en. het weer teruggegee en weer deur die troepe teruggekeer, wat sy mense so aangemoedig het dat hulle almal op dieselfde manier gevolg het, waardeur hulle baie van die vyand omvergewerp het, wie se perde langs die pad gestamp het. Toe hulle [die vyand] van die grond af opstaan, sien hulle die bruidegom van die genoemde Thomas in goeie orde opkom en begin vlieg na 'n droë turfmos wat naby was, en daarom begin byna al [die ander] na die mos, wat hul perde vir hul paar aanvallers agterlaat. Die genoemde Thomas en sy manne kon nie te perd naby hulle kom nie, en daarom het hy hulle perde langs die pad na die genoemde kasteel laat ry, waar hulle in die nag 'n buit gehad het van nege telling perde.

'N Ander keer, op 'n markdag, was die stad vol mense uit die buurt, Alexander Frisel, 'n aanhanger van Robert de Bruce, in 'n hinderlaag met 'n honderd soldate, ongeveer 'n halwe liga van die genoemde kasteel. het ander van sy mense gestuur om 'n gehuggie aan die oorkant van die kasteel te laat gaan. Die genoemde Thomas, toe hy die herrie hoor, het 'n fyn laaier gemonteer voordat sy mense gereed kon wees, en het gaan kyk wat daar gebeur het. Die vyand het uit hul hinderlaag gestroom voor die poorte van die genoemde kasteel, so omdat hulle goed geweet het dat hy (Sir Thomas) uitgegaan het. Die genoemde Thomas, wat dit besef, keer terug in 'n voet deur die stad Cupar, aan die einde waarvan die kasteel staan, waar hy te perd moes ingaan, en waar hulle die hele straat beset het. Toe hy naby hulle kom, slaan hy spore in sy perd van diegene wat teen hom gevorder het, slaan hy dagbreek met sy spies, ander met die skok van sy perd, en terwyl hy deur hulle almal gaan, klim hy by die hek af, ry sy perd in, en gly binne die versperring, waar hy sy mense byeenkom.

Hierdie koning Edward die Tweede nadat die verowering tydens sy vader se liefde groot liefde toegewy het aan Piers de Gaveston, 'n jong man uit 'n goeie Gascon -familie, terwyl sy vader so bekommerd was dat hy [Piers] sy seun sou laat verdwaal dat hy veroorsaak het hom [Piers] uit die koninkryk verban en selfs sy seun en sy neef, Thomas van Lancaster, en ander magnate laat sweer dat die ballingskap van die genoemde Piers vir ewig onherroeplik moet wees. Maar kort na die dood van die vader het die seun die genoemde Piers skielik laat herroep en hom na sy suster se dogter, een van die dogters van Gloucester, laat neem en hom graaf van Cornwall gemaak. Piers het baie manjifiek, liberaal en goed geteel geword, maar hoogmoedig en hooghartig in debat, terwyl sommige van die groot manne in die koninkryk diep aanstoot geneem het. Hulle het sy vernietiging beplan terwyl hy die koning in die Skotse oorlog gedien het. Hy het veroorsaak dat die stad Dundee versterk is, en hy het hom daar meer onbeskof gedra as wat die here van die land goedgekeur het, sodat hy na die koning moes terugkeer vanweë die teenstand van die baronne. Op pad terug verras hulle hom en neem hom na Scarborough, maar hy is by Aymer de Valence afgelewer op voorwaarde dat hy voor die koning geneem moet word, van wie se mense hy teruggeneem is naby Oxford, en voor die Graaf van Lancaster, wat hom naby Warwick laat onthoof het, het 'n sterflike haat van die koning ontstaan ​​wat vir ewig tussen hulle bestaan ​​het. Adam Banaster, 'n ridder -vrygesel van die graafskap Lancaster, het op aandrang van die koning 'n opstand teen die graaf gelei, maar hy kon dit nie onderhou nie, en is geneem en onthoof in opdrag van die graaf, wat lang optogte gevolg het sy [Banaster ’s] mense.

Tydens die geskil tussen die koning en die genoemde graaf, het Robert de Brits, wat reeds gedurende die lewe van die vader van die koning opgestaan ​​het, sy krag in Skotland hernu, deur gesag te eis oor die koninkryk van Skotland en baie van die lande in Skotland wat voorheen onderwerp is aan en onderdanig was aan die koning van Engeland en dit was hoofsaaklik die gevolg van 'n slegte regering deur die amptenare van die koning, wat hulle [die lande] te streng in hul private belange bestuur het.

Die kastele van Roxburgh en Edinburgh is gevange geneem en afgebreek, en die kastele was in die toesig van buitelanders, terwyl Roxburgh [in beheer] was van Guillemyng Fenygges, 'n ridder van Bourgondië, van wie James de Douglas die kasteel in die nag van Shorve Tuesday gevang het , word genoemde William deur 'n pyl geslaan terwyl hy die groot toring verdedig het. Peres Lebaud, 'n Gascon -ridder, was die balju van Edinburgh, van wie die mense van Thomas Randolph, graaf van Moray, wat die genoemde kasteel beleër het, dit op die hoogste deel van die rots geneem het, waar hy geen gevaar vermoed het nie. Die genoemde Peter het Skotte geword in diens van Robert de Bruce, wat hom daarna van verraad beskuldig het en veroorsaak het dat hy opgehang en getrek is. Daar is gesê dat hy hom [Peres] vermoed het omdat hy te uitgesproke was, maar dat hy tog van mening was dat hy Engels van hart was, en sy bes gedoen het om hom [Bruce] nie aanstoot te gee nie.

Die genoemde koning Edward het 'n ekspedisie na hierdie dele beplan, waar hy tydens die verligting van die kasteel van Stirling verslaan is, en 'n groot aantal van sy mense gedood is, [insluitend] die graaf van Gloucester en ander regs edele persone en die graaf van Hereford is in Bothwell geneem, waar hy hom teruggetrek het, waar hy deur die goewerneur verraai is. Hy is vrygelaat [in ruil] vir die vrou van Robert de Bruce en die biskop van St. Andrews.

Oor die wyse waarop hierdie ongemak gebeur het, verduidelik die kronieke dat nadat die graaf van Atholl die stad St. John [Perth] verower het vir die gebruik van Robert de Bruce van William Oliphant, kaptein [daarvan] vir die koning van Engeland omdat hy destyds 'n aanhanger van sy [Edward ’s] was, hoewel kort nadat hy hom verlaat het, die genoemde Robert van krag marsjeer voor die kasteel van Stirling, waar Philip de Moubray, ridder, bevel gegee het oor die genoemde kasteel vir die koning van Engeland, het met die genoemde Robert de Bruce afsprake gemaak om die genoemde kasteel, wat hy beleër het, oor te gee, tensy hy [de Moubray] verlig moes word: dit wil sê, tensy die Engelse weermag binne drie ligas van die genoemde kasteel binne agt dae kom van Saint John's Day in die komende somer, sou hy die genoemde kasteel oorgee. Die koning van Engeland het om hierdie rede daarheen gekom, waar die konstabel Philip hom op drie ligas van die kasteel af ontmoet het, op Sondag die nagmaal van Johannes, en vir hom gesê dat daar geen geleentheid was om nader te kom nie, want hy homself as verlig beskou. Toe vertel hy hom hoe die vyand die smal paaie in die bos versper het.

[Maar] die jong troepe sou geensins stop nie, maar het hulle weggehou. Die gevorderde wag, waarvan die graaf van Gloucester bevel gehad het, het die pad binne die park binnegekom, waar hulle onmiddellik grof ontvang is deur die Skotte wat die gang beset het. Hier word Peris de Mountforth, ridder, met 'n byl deur die hand van Robert de Bruce gedood, soos berig is.

Terwyl die genoemde gevorderde wag hierdie pad volg, het Robert Lord de Clifford en Henry de Beaumont, met driehonderd soldate, 'n kring aan die ander kant van die bos in die rigting van die kasteel gemaak en die oop grond gehou. Thomas Randolph, graaf van Moray, Robert de Bruce se neef, wat leier was van die Skotse gevorderde wag, hoor dat sy oom die gevorderde wag van die Engelse aan die ander kant van die bos afgeweer het, het gedink dat hy sy deel moes hê , en uit die bos uitgaan met sy afdeling, marsjeer oor die oop grond na die twee hierbo genoemde here.

Sir Henry de Beaumont het sy manne geroep: 'Laat ons 'n bietjie wag, laat hulle hulle kamer gee!'

'Meneer,' sê sir Thomas Gray, 'ek betwyfel dat wat u ook al vir hulle gee, dit te gou sal kry.'

"Baie goed!" het die genoemde Henry uitgeroep, "as jy bang is, wees af!"#8217

"Meneer," antwoord die genoemde Thomas, "dit is nie uit vrees dat ek vandag sal vlieg nie." So gesê dat hy tussen hom [Beaumont] en sir William Deyncourt aangespoor het en in die vyand se vyande beland het. William is doodgemaak, Thomas is gevange geneem, sy perd word op die snoeke gedood, en hy het self saam met hulle [die Skotte] te voet weggetrek toe hulle wegtrek, nadat hy die eskader van die genoemde twee here heeltemal verwoes het, waarvan sommige [die Engels] het na die kasteel gevlug, ander na die leër van die koning, wat reeds deur die bos die pad verlaat het op 'n vlakte naby die water van Forth anderkant Bannockburn, 'n bose, diep, nat moeras, waar die genoemde Engelse weermag verval het. onbuigsaam en het die hele nag gebly, nadat hy ongelukkig vertroue verloor het en te veel ontevrede was oor die gebeure van die dag.

Die Skotte in die bos het gedink dat hulle goed genoeg was vir die dag, en was op die punt om af te kamp om gedurende die nag na die Lennox, 'n sterker land, te marsjeer toe sir Alexander de Seton, wat in diens van Engeland was en saam met die koning daarheen gekom het, in die geheim die Engelse leër verlaat het, in die bos na Robert de Bruce gegaan en vir hom gesê: 'Meneer, dit is die tyd as u ooit wil onderneem om Skotland te verower. Die Engelse het moed verloor en is moedeloos en verwag niks anders as 'n skielike, oop aanval nie. ”

Daarna beskryf hy hul toestand en belowe sy kop, omdat hy gehang en getrek is, dat as hy [Bruce] hulle môre sou aanval, hy hulle maklik sou verslaan sonder [veel] verlies. Op wie se opset [Seton ’s] hulle [die Skotte besluit het om te veg, en môre met sonsopkoms het hulle in drie afdelings infanterie uit die bos getrek. Hulle het hul koers met vrymoedigheid op die Engelse leër gerig, wat die hele nag onder die wapens was, met hul perde gebyt. Hulle [die Engelse] was in groot onrus, want hulle was nie gewoond daaraan om te voet te veg nie, terwyl die Skotte les geleer het van die Vlaminge, wat voorheen by Courtrai die mag van Frankryk te voet verslaan het. Bogenoemde Skotte kom in die rits skiltrome en val die Engelse kolom aan, wat vasgekeer was en nie teen hulle [die Skotte] kon opereer nie, en hulle perde was op die snoeke verskriklik. Die troepe in die Engelse agterkant val terug op die sloot van Bannockburn en tuimel die een oor die ander.

Die Engelse eskaders wat in die war geraak word deur die stoot van snoeke op die perde, begin vlug. Diegene wat aangestel is om die koning se leisels by te woon, het die ramp waargeneem, het die koning by die leisels van die veld gelei na die kasteel, en hy het gegaan, al was dit baie teen die graan. Terwyl die Skotse ridders, wat te voet was, die behuising van die King's#-laaier aangegryp het om hom te keer, het hy so sterk agter hom met 'n mace geslaan dat daar niemand was waaraan hy geraak het dat hy nie val nie. die grond.

Terwyl diegene met die koning se leisels hom altyd vorentoe trek, het een van hulle, Giles de Argentin, 'n beroemde ridder wat onlangs oor die see gekom het uit die oorloë van keiser Hendrik van Luxemburg, vir die koning gesê: 'Vader , u teuels is aan my verbind, u is nou veilig, daar is u kasteel waar u persoon veilig kan wees. Ek is nie gewoond om te vlieg nie, en ek gaan ook nie nou begin nie. Ek beveel u by God aan! ”

Toe, met die spore na sy perd, keer hy terug na die mellay, waar hy gedood is.

Die laaier van die King kon nie verder gaan nie, en hy het weer op 'n koerier geklim en deur die Torwood gehaal en deur die vlaktes van Lothian. Diegene wat saam met hom gegaan het, is gered. Die koning ontsnap met groot moeite en reis daarvandaan na Dunbar, waar mev. Patrick, graaf van Maart, het hom eerbaar ontvang en sy kasteel tot sy beskikking gestel, en selfs die plek ontruim en al sy mense verwyder, sodat daar geen twyfel of vermoede bestaan ​​dat hy niks anders as sy heer aan sy heer sou doen nie , want op daardie tydstip was hy [Dunbar] sy leuenaar. Daarvandaan het die koning oorsee gegaan na Berwick en daarna na die suide.

Edward de Bruce, brother to Robert, King of Scotland desiring to be a king [also], passed out of Scotland into Ireland with a great army in hopes of conquering it. He remained there two years and a half, performing there feats of arms, inflicting great destruction both upon provender and in other ways, and conquering much territory, which would form a splendid romance were it all recounted. He proclaimed himself King of the kings of Ireland [but] he was defeated and slain at Dundalk by the English of that country, [because] through over confidence he would not wait for reinforcements, which had arrived lately, and were not more than six leagues distant.

At the same time the King of England sent the Earl of Arundel as commander on the March of Scotland, who was repulsed at Lintalee in the forest of Jedworth, by James de Douglas, and Thomas de Richmond was slain. The said earl then retreated to the south without doing any more.

On another occasion the said James defeated the garrison of Berwick at Scaithmoor, where a number of Gascons were slain. Another time there happened a disaster on the marches at Berwick, by treachery of the false traitors of the marches, where was slain Robert de Neville which Robert shortly before had slain Richard fitz Marmaduke, cousin of Robert de Bruce, on the old bridge of Durham, because of a quarrel between them [arising] out of jealousy which should be reckoned the greater lord. Therefore, in order to obtain the King’s grace and pardon for this offence, Neville began to serve in the King’s war, wherein he died.

At the same period the said James de Douglas, with the assistance of Patrick, Earl of March, captured Berwick from the English, by means of the treason of one in the town, Peter de Spalding. The castle held out for eleven weeks after, and at last capitulated to the Scots in default of relief, because it was not provisioned. The constable, Roger de Horsley, lost there an eye by an arrow.

Aymer de Valence, Earl of Pembroke, traveling to the court of Rome, was captured by a Burgundian, John de la Moiller, taken into the empire and ransomed for 20,000 silver livres, because the said John declared that he had done the King of England service, and that the King was owing him his pay.

This James de Douglas was now very busy in Northumberland. Robert de Bruce caused all the castles of Scotland, except Dunbarton, to be dismantled. This Robert de Bruce caused William de Soulis to be arrested, and caused him to be confined in the castle of Dunbarton for punishment in prison, accusing him of having conspired with other great men of Scotland for his [Robert’s] undoing, to whom [de Soulis] they were attorned subjects, which the said William confessed by his acknowledgment. David de Brechin, John Logie, and Gilbert Malherbe were hanged and drawn in the town of St. John [Perth], and the corpse of Roger de Mowbray was brought on a litter before the judges in the Parliament of Scone, and condemned. This conspiracy was discovered by Murdach of Menteith, who himself became earl afterwards. He had lived long in England in loyalty to the King, and, returned home in order to discover this conspiracy. He became Earl of Menteith by consent of his niece, daughter of his elder brother, who, after his death at another time, became countess.

The King of England undertook scarcely anything against Scotland, and thus lost as much by indolence as his father had conquered and also a number of fortresses within his marches of England, as well as a great part of Northumberland which revolted against him.

Gilbert de Middleton in the bishopric of Durham, plundered two Cardinals who came to consecrate the Bishop, and seized Louis de Beaumont, Bishop of Durham, and his brother Henry de Beaumont, because the King had caused his [Gilbert’s] cousin Adam de Swinburne to be arrested, because he had spoken too frankly to him about the condition of the Marches.

This Gilbert, with adherence of others upon the Marches, rode upon a foray into Cleveland, and committed other great destruction, having the assistance of nearly all Northumberland, except the castles of Bamborough, Alnwick, and Norham, of which the two first named were treating with the enemy, the one by means of hostages, the other by collusion, when the said Gilbert was taken through treachery of his own people in the castle of Mitford by William de Felton, Thomas de Heton, and Robert de Horncliff, and was hanged and drawn in London.

On account of all this, the Scots had become so bold that they subdued the Marches of England and cast down the castles of Wark and Harbottle, so that hardly was there an Englishman who dared to withstand them. They had subdued all Northumberland by means of the treachery of the false people of the country. So that scarcely could they [the Scots] find anything to do upon these Marches, except at Norham, where a [certain] knight, Thomas de Gray, was in garrison with his kinsfolk. It would be too lengthy a matter to relate [all] the combats and deeds of arms and evils for default of provender, and sieges which happened to him during the eleven years that he remained [there] during such an evil and disastrous period for the English. It would be wearisome to tell the story of the less [important] of his combats in the said castle. Indeed it was so that, after the town of Berwick was taken out of the hands of the English, the Scots had got so completely the upper hand and were so insolent that they held the English to be of almost no account, who [the English] concerned themselves no more with the war, but allowed it to cease.

At which time, at a great feast of lords and ladies in the county of Lincoln, a young page brought a war helmet, with a gilt crest on the same, to William Marmion, knight, with a letter from his lady-love commanding him to go to the most dangerous place in Great Britain and [there] cause this helmet to be famous. Thereupon it was decided by the knights [present that he should go to Norham, as the most dangerous [and] adventurous place in the country. The said William betook himself to Norham, where, within four days of his arrival, Sir Alexander de Mowbray, brother of Sir Philip de Mowbray, at that time governor of Berwick, came before the castle of Norham with the most spirited chivalry of the Marches of Scotland, and drew up before the castle at the hour of noon with more than eight score men-at-arms. The alarm was given in the castle as they were sitting down to dinner. Thomas de Gray, the constable, went with his garrison to his barriers, saw the enemy near drawn up in order of battle, looked behind him, and beheld the said knight, William Marmion, approaching on foot, all glittering with gold and silver, marvelous finely attired, with the helmet on his head. The said Thomas, having been well informed of the reason for his coming [to Norham], cried aloud to him: “Sir knight, you have come as knight errant to make that helmet famous, and it is more meet that deeds of chivalry be done on horseback than afoot, when that can be managed conveniently. Mount your horse: there are your enemies: set spurs and charge into their midst. May I deny my God if I do not rescue your person, alive or dead, or perish in the attempt!”

The knight mounted a beautiful charger, spurred forward, [and] charged into the midst of the enemy, who struck him down, wounded him in the face, [and] dragged him out of the saddle to the ground.

At this moment, up came the said Thomas with all his garrison, with levelled lances, [which] they drove into the bowels of the horses so that they threw their riders. They repulsed the mounted enemy, raised the fallen knight, remounting him upon his own horse, put the enemy to flight, [of whom] some were left dead in the first encounter, [and] captured fifty valuable horses. The women of the castle [then] brought out horses to their men, who mounted and gave chase, slaying those whom they could overtake. Thomas ms. de Gray caused to be killed in the Yair Ford, a Fleming [named] Cryn, a sea captain, a pirate, who was a great partisan of Robert de Bruce. The others who escaped were pursued to the nunnery of Berwick.

Another time, Adam de Gordon, a baron of Scotland, having mustered more than eight score men-at-arms, came before the said castle of Norham, thinking to raid the cattle, which were grazing outside the said castle. The young fellows of the garrison rashly hastened to the furthest end of the town, which at that time was in ruins, and began to skirmish. The Scottish enemy surrounded them. The said men of the sortie defended themselves briskly, keeping themselves within the old walls. At that moment Thomas de Gray, the said constable, came out of the castle with his garrison, [and,] perceiving his people in such danger from the enemy, said to his vice‑constable: “I’ll hand over to you this castle, albeit I have it in charge to hold in the King’s cause, unless I actually drink of the same cup that my people over there have to drink.”

Then he set forward at great speed, having of common people and others, scarcely more than sixty all told. The enemy, perceiving him coming in good order, left the skirmishers among the old walls and drew out into the open fields. The men who had been surrounded in the ditches, perceiving their chieftain coming in this manner, dashed across the ditches and ran to the fields against the said enemy, who were obliged to face about, and, then charged back upon them [the skirmishers]. Upon which came up the said Thomas with his men, when you might see the horses floundering and the people on foot slaying them as they lay on the ground. [Then they] rallied to the said Thomas, charged the enemy, [and] drove them out of the fields across the water of Tweed. They captured and killed many many horses lay dead, so that had they [the English] been on horseback, scarcely one would have escaped.

The said Thomas de Gray was twice besieged in the said castle: once for nearly a year, the other time for seven months. The enemy erected fortifications before him, one at Upsettlington, another at the church of Norham. He was twice provisioned by the Lords de Percy and de Neville, [who] came in force to relieve the said castle and these [nobles] became wise, noble and rich, and were of great service on the Marches.

Once on the vigil of St. Katherine during his Gray’s time, the fore-court of the said castle was betrayed by one of his men, who slew the porter [and] admitted the enemy [who were] in ambush in a house before the gate. The inner bailey and the keep held out. The enemy did not remain there more than three days, because they feared the attack of the said Thomas, who was then returning from the south, where he had been at that time. They evacuated it [the forecourt] and burnt it, after failing to mine it.

Many pretty feats of arms chanced to the said Thomas which are not recorded here.

Van Scalacronica: the reigns of Edward I, Edward II and Edward III, as recorded by Sir Thomas Gray, and now translated by Sir Herbert Maxwell, (Glasgow, 1907), p. 23-26, 48-65.


Defeat of Rome: Crassus, Carrhae and the Invasion of the East

Gareth C. Sampson

Published by Pen & Sword Military 21/02/2008, 2008

Gebruik - Hardeband
Toestand: Baie goed

Hardeband. Toestand: Baie goed. Shipped within 24 hours from our UK warehouse. Clean, undamaged book with no damage to pages and minimal wear to the cover. Spine still tight, in very good condition. Remember if you are not happy, you are covered by our 100% money back guarantee.

Meer koopkeuses van ander verkopers op AbeBooks


Before we can examine the period in question (241–218 BC) we must first understand how this period fits in with the wider expansion of the Roman state and the events which took place prior to 241 BC. It is tempting to view Rome of the third century BC through the lens of the later, more famous period a Rome which was unquestioned master of Italy, able to defeat any other Mediterranean power and on an inevitable course to mastery of the Mediterranean world. However, this was not the Rome of the third century BC. By 241 BC, Rome had only recently taken control of central and southern Italy, the latter of which had seen recent attempts made to annex it to being either a part of a Syracusan empire to the south or an Epirote empire to the east. Furthermore, it is important to note that Rome’s control of Italy did not extend to the north of the peninsula, which was occupied by a collection of Gallic tribes and formed part of a wider civilisation, which stretched from Spain to the Balkans and beyond.

We must also not forget that Italy did not exist in isolation, but was part of a Mediterranean world which was undergoing a major upheaval in terms of the established world order. Less than 100 years before 241 BC, the ancient superpower of Persia had been destroyed within a decade by one man: Alexander III (the Great) of Macedon. His death in 323 BC unleashed a generation of warfare across Greece and the Near East, which by the 280s had stabilised into an uneasy balance of power between three new superpowers: Antigonid Macedon, the Seleucid Empire and Ptolemaic Egypt (see Map 1). Italy sat on the edges of this new world order, but within striking distance of mainland Greece, dominated by the Antigonid Dynasty of Macedon.

The Roman Federation therefore must be placed in this context. To the north lay the vast and seemingly endless expanses of mainland Europe and the tribes that dwelt within, which encompassed northern Italy itself. To the east lay the far more culturally advanced civilisation of Greece, dominated by the great power of Macedon. To the south and the east lay the Carthaginian Empire, centred on North Africa, but extending across the western Mediterranean. Compared to these great civilisations, Rome was the emerging, and in some ways upstart power, and by 241 BC had announced itself on the wider world stage by an extraordinary period of expansion.

Roman Expansion in Italy (338–264 BC)

The year 338 BC marks a decisive point in the history of Italy, as coincidently it did in Greece, albeit for different reasons. In Greece, King Philip II of Macedon was victorious at the Battle of Chaeronea, which established Macedonian suzerainty over the Greek states for the next 200 years. In Italy, another war was also ending this time between Rome and her former allies in the Latin League, with Rome emerging victorious. Rome’s victory in this war did not give her suzerainty over Italy (akin to that of Macedon in Greece), merely mastery of the region of Latium, but the political settlement that followed this victory did provide the foundation for Rome’s domination of Italy, and ultimately the wider Mediterranean world.

Prior to the Latin War, Rome had been at war with her near neighbours for over four centuries (if we are to believe the traditional chronology) and yet barely controlled any territory beyond the coastal plains of Latium itself, in western central Italy. Furthermore, Rome faced an equally powerful neighbour in terms of the Samnite Federation and the ever-constant threat of the Gallic tribes of northern Italy (who had sacked Rome itself just fifty years earlier, c.390–386 BC). Therefore, to put Rome’s efforts in perspective, they had only conquered the neighbouring city of Veii (roughly ten miles from Rome) in 396 BC after intermittent warfare lasting 300 years. Yet despite this, within sixty years of the peace settlement of 338 BC Rome had established an unprecedented control of all central and southern Italy. It is to this political settlement (which accompanied the end of the Latin War) which we must turn our focus, when looking of the reasons behind this extraordinary wave of military expansion.¹

Prior to this war, fought by Rome against their rebellious allies, Rome’s power ostensibly lay through being head of the Latin League, a defensive alliance of supposedly equal states. However, over the centuries this federation had evolved into being dominated by Rome and, as many of her allies saw it, seemed to exist solely for Rome’s benefit. It was this resentment of Roman dominance of the League which saw Rome’s allies attempt to break free from the League and thus brought about the Roman–Latin War of 341–338 BC. Unfortunately for the other Latin cities, the war merely confirmed Roman military dominance and her enemies were comprehensively defeated.

Having been freed from the need to preserve the pretence of an alliance of equals, the Romans dissolved the Latin League and in its place stood a new unofficial federation, that of Rome. Livy provides a detailed description of these reforms, which he ascribes to the Consul L. Furius Camillus.² Instead of common ties between all the participants, each of the Latin cities was tied to Rome individually by treaty. Rome secured their treaties by means of carrot and stick policies. The ‘stick’ came in the form of Roman veteran colonies planted at strategic points within the territories of the defeated Latin states, accompanied by land confiscations. The ‘carrot’, however, was two-fold. Firstly, the various cities were able to maintain their own internal political and social structures and the local elites were left free from Roman interference to pursue their own internal policies. What was sacrificed was an independent foreign policy, which was now slaved to that of Rome. However, aside from this, they were left to their own devices, speaking their own language, continuing with the own culture and carrying on business as usual.

Furthermore, the Romans introduced a new graduated series of citizenship levels. At the peak was Roman citizenship, which gave full political and judicial rights, followed by partial citizenship (civitas cine suffragio), which had no rights of political participation in Rome, and only limited legal protection from Romans.³ This system of differentiating levels of citizenship allowed Rome the ability to incorporate new peoples without diluting the original core of the Roman citizens or jeopardizing the Roman elite’s control of its institutions, especially as voting had to take place in person in Rome itself. Despite the different grades of citizenship, this was not a closed system, nor was it one restricted to race.⁴ This meant that there were opportunities for advancement within the system, to both communities and in particular their elites, giving them a stake in the Roman system and buying their loyalty.

However, at the heart of this settlement lay the obligation on all citizens (whether full or partial) to be called upon for military service in Rome’s armies. It was not only those with citizenship (full and partial) who could be conscripted into the Roman Army, but Rome’s Italian allies were duty bound to send their citizens to serve in Rome’s armies. This created a massive supply of potential manpower for Rome, which was to be the central pillar of all future Roman expansion. In the ancient world, city states were limited by the availability of citizen manpower and one heavy defeat could set a state back a generation.

The years that followed this settlement saw a series of wars against Rome’s neighbours, most prominently the Samnite Federation. Starting in 326 BC, the Second Samnite War⁵ lasted for twenty years (until 304 BC), and saw Rome’s fortunes swing between victories and humiliating defeats, such as the Battle of Caudine Forks in 321 BC, which forever ranked as one of Rome’s most humiliating military reversals. Nevertheless, by 304 BC Rome had the upper hand and the Samnites were forced to sue for peace, albeit maintaining their independence.

The period saw two major reforms to the Roman military system. In 312 BC, one of the Censors, Ap. Claudius Caecus, ordered the construction of the Via Appia, the first major paved road in Italy, connecting Rome and Capua (crossing the Alban Hills and the Pontine Marshes). This allowed Rome to move her armies far more swiftly to the south to support the war against the Samnites.

The following year saw a Tribune of the Plebs (C. Marcius) pass a law allowing for the sixteen Tribunes of the Soldiers to be elected by the people, rather than appointed by the commanders. It has long been argued that this law came at the same time as the Romans doubled their legions from two to four (having four Tribunes per legion) and that this also coincided with the abandonment of the phalanx and the development of the more flexible Roman maniple.⁶ This year also saw the outbreak of war between Rome and various Etruscan cities. The years that followed saw Rome advance into central Italy and up into Umbria, conquering a number of peoples, such as the Herenici and Aequi and allying with others, such as the Marsi. The result of this was that by the late 300s BC Roman power extended throughout central Italy.

This massive extension of Roman power naturally led to a reaction from the peoples who were not yet under Roman rule, resulting in the formation of an alliance between the Samnites, Etruscans, Umbrians and Gauls (of northern Italy). This resulted in the war that is most commonly referred to as the Third Samnite War (298–290 BC), but was far wider in scale than the name suggests. This conflict was Rome’s greatest victory to date and resulted in Rome defeating each of the opposing alliance and gaining control of all of central and much of southern Italy, stretching to the Adriatic coast. The year 295 BC saw the Battle of Sentinum, in which Rome was able to field an army of 36,000, a huge figure for the time, and defeat a combined force of Gauls and Samnites. By 290 BC the surrender of the Samnites meant that the only regions of Italy which now lay outside of Roman control were the Gallic tribes of northern Italy and the Greek city states of the south.

A further war with the Gallic tribes of northern Italy soon followed (against the Boii and Senones), which ultimately saw further Roman success, culminating in a victory at the Battle of Lake Vadimon in 283 BC. A large section of the northern Adriatic coastline of Italy was thus added to Rome’s Italian empire. This war was soon followed by the more famous war for southern Italy, where Rome faced one of the Hellenistic world’s most celebrated generals: Pyrrhus, King of Epirus. Thus, for the first time, Rome faced a Hellenistic army from mainland Greece and famously at the battles of Heraclea and Ausculum (280 and 279 BC) were comprehensively defeated. These battles, however, gave rise to the modern concept of a ‘Pyrrhic victory’ as the Romans, thanks to their system of treaties and obligations to provide manpower, were able to replace their losses and return to full strength within the year, whilst Pyrrhus found his numbers steadily declining. Following a number of unsuccessful campaigns in Sicily, Pyrrhus returned to Italy and was finally defeated at the Battle of Beneventum in 275 BC. Following his withdrawal back to Greece, Rome advanced into southern Italy and conquered the Greek city states therein.

Rome and the First Punic War (264–241 BC)

The conquest of southern Italy brought Roman territory into proximity with the perpetual warzone that was the island of Sicily. For centuries the island had seen warfare between native peoples and various external powers, who coveted the island for its natural resources and strategic position. Perhaps the longest period of fighting had been between the North African power of Carthage and the native Sicilian power of Syracuse, with neither side managing to achieve a lasting dominance.

In the 270s, however, this balance of power had been disrupted by the arrival of King Pyrrhus of Epirus. Having defeated the Romans twice in battle, but unable to conclude the war, Pyrrhus accepted an offer from the Sicilian peoples, led by Syracuse, to take command of native Sicily and drive out the Carthaginians. Unable to resist the dream of a Sicilian, and possible African, empire to add to his hopes of an Italian one, Pyrrhus accepted and crossed into Sicily with his army in 278 BC.⁸ Ironically, this invasion brought the traditional allies of Carthage and Rome closer together, as they concluded a fresh (anti-Pyrrhic) alliance. However, Pyrrhus’s Sicilian campaign followed a similar course to his Italian one, being unable to convert military victory on the battlefield into a lasting settlement. Having alienated his Sicilian allies, he quit Sicily to return to his original ambition of carving out an Italian empire in 276 BC, leaving behind a shattered island.

This chaos was exploited by a group known as the Mamertines⁹ these were Campanian mercenaries who made a bid to seize control of large swathes of Sicily for themselves. In response to this new threat, a Syracusan general named Hiero (II) formed an alliance of native forces and drove the Mamertines back into the north-eastern tip of Sicily, and the city of Messana, which controlled the strategic crossing from Sicily to Italy (see Map 2).¹⁰ Faced with defeat at the hands of Hiero in c.265/264 BC the Mamertines appealed to both Carthage and Rome to assist them. Seeing a chance to restore their Sicilian empire, the Carthaginians agreed and installed a garrison at Messina, thwarting their old Syracusan rivals.

Unfortunately for all three sides already involved in the war in Sicily, the Roman Senate continued to debate the Mamertine request, understandably, as they had never operated in Sicily before, and they and the Carthaginians were long-standing allies. Ultimately, however, it was a vote of the Roman people which determined that Rome would send aid to Sicily and the Mamertines, and the Senate thus dispatched the Consul Ap. Claudius Caudex to Messina with a Roman Army.¹¹ Thus the situation in Sicily saw the entry of a fourth military force. Given the Roman vote of support, the Mamertines threw their lot in with Rome and were able to expel the Carthaginian garrison, allowing the Romans to seize control of the city. Faced with the expansion of Roman power into Sicily, the Carthaginians and Syracusans – traditionally old enemies – found common cause against Rome and thus the First Punic War began. Thus the war started as Rome and the Mamertines versus Carthage and the Syracusans (and their allies).

Ever since 264 BC, historians have been examining the question as to why Rome intervened in the interminable struggles in Sicily, and ultimately it must be acknowledged that we will never know for sure. Certainly the stated cause of the Roman intervention itself seems weak defending rogue mercenaries who had seized a native city. This is especially the case given that a few years earlier, in 270 BC, the Romans had expelled a similar group of Campanian mercenaries who had seized the city of Rhegium, in southern Italy.

Yet, as detailed above, Rome was undergoing a major period of expansion and had just seized control of southern Italy. As history had shown, southern Italy was open to attack from both mainland Greece (Epirus), but also from Sicily. In the period 390–386 BC Dionysius, the Tyrant of Syracuse, had invaded and conquered much of southern Italy, adding it to his greater Syracusan empire.¹² Having conquered southern Italy, Dionysius then used it as a launch pad to invade Epirus itself, to place a puppet on the throne. Therefore, strategically, no control of southern Italy would be secure without securing its eastern and western flanks (Epirus and Sicily). The Mamertine appeal thus gave Rome the excuse they needed to intervene and the prospect of Carthaginian control of Messina provided the motivation. Thus, for the first time, Rome embarked upon an overseas war.

During the early years of the war, Rome experienced a number of successes. They moved swiftly from the conquest of Messina to a siege of Syracuse itself, but fared no better than either the Athenians or the Carthaginians had over the centuries. However, what they could not achieve through force of arms they achieved through diplomacy when Hiero, now Tyrant of Syracuse, was persuaded to break his alliance with Carthage and conclude a treaty with Rome instead. Thus, within a year of the war’s outbreak Rome had secured both Messina and Syracuse and had isolated Carthage.

The Romans built on this success and 262 BC saw Rome storm the city of Agrigentum, a key Carthaginian base on the southern Sicilian coast. From this high point, however, the war in Sicily became one of attrition, with the Carthaginians wisely avoiding open battle on land. In an attempt to gain the initiative in the war, Rome invested heavily in building its first wartime navy in order to tackle Carthaginian naval dominance and cut Sicily off from Carthage itself. At first the Romans proved victorious, as seen in 260 BC at the Battle of Mylae, which saw a Roman Consul, C. Duilius, celebrate the city’s first naval triumph. This was in great part due to the Roman tactic of engaging ships at close quarters, using grappling irons to tie the two ships together and then sending marines across to secure the other ship thus turning a naval engagement into an infantry one.

Unfortunately for Rome, the war in Sicily had descended into a series of prolonged sieges, with the Carthaginian withdrawing to their key bases and allowing Roman forces free reign across the island’s interior. To end this stalemate in 256 BC, the Roman Consuls undertook their boldest military manoeuvre to date when L. Manlius Vulso Longus and M. Atilius Regulus led an invasion of Africa itself, in an attempt to knock Carthage out of the war. Another naval victory, at the Battle of Ecnomus, allowed the Romans to land their army in Africa. Unfortunately the Roman Army was then comprehensively defeated in the Battle of Bagradas the following year, at the hands of a Spartan mercenary commander named Xanthippus. With this bold invasion defeated, the war dragged on for another decade of Roman sieges in Sicily and naval encounters in Sicilian waters.

Ultimately, the First Punic War became one of attrition, with the resources of both empires being stretched to the limit. In the end, Rome was able to make the most of its fiscal and human resources and by 242 BC was able to finally reduce the last key Carthaginian strongholds of Drepana and Lilybaeum. With Sicily lost and Rome vying for control of the seas, the Carthaginian Senate had no choice but to seek terms. Thus Rome had won its first overseas war, but only through attrition. For Carthage, the terms of the peace treaty were the evacuation of all its forces from Sicily and twenty years of war reparations.¹³

The Aftermath of the First Punic War – Rebellion in Italy

At the conclusion of the war, both sides were faced with rebellions amongst their own allies. In Rome’s case, this rebellion broke out in 241 BC and centred on the Falisci. The Falisci were an Italic people who lived in Etruria, some thirty miles north of Rome. Regretably, there are no detailed surviving accounts of this revolt, which is unfortunate given the oddness of its timing just as Rome emerged victorious from twenty years of warfare and had large numbers of battle-hardened soldiers already mobilised. Of the surviving accounts which do mention the revolt and ensuing war, Zonaras and Eutropius provide the most detail:


» Have you read this book? We'd like to know what you think about it - write a review about Rome, Blood and Politics book by Gareth C. Sampson and you'll earn 50c in Boomerang Bucks loyalty dollars (you must be a Boomerang Books Account Holder - it's free to sign up and there are great benefits!)

Dr Gareth Sampson holds a Phd in Ancient History from Manchester University and now lectures on Roman history. His previous books were the _Defeat of Rome_ (2008), _The Crisis of Rome: Marius and the Jugurthine and Northern Wars_ (2011), _The Collapse of Rome_ (2013) and _The Eagle Spreads Her Wings: Roman Expansion Between the Punic Wars_ (2016), all published by Pen & Sword.


Description of English soldiers in Italy by Filippo Villani

They were all young and for the most part born and raised during the long wars between the French and English – therefore hot and impetuous, used to slaughter and to loot, quick with weapons, careless of safety. In the ranks they were quick and obedient to their superiors yet in camp, by reason of their unrestrained dash and boldness, they lay scattered about in disorderly and incautious fashion so that a courageous enemy might easily harm and shame them.

Their armor was almost uniformly a cuirass and a steel breastplate, iron arm-pieces, thigh- and leg-pieces they carried stout daggers and swords all had tilting lances which they dismounted to use each had one or two pages, and some had more. When they take off their armor, the pages presently set to polishing, so that when they appear in battle their arms seem like mirrors, and they so much more terrible.

Others of them were archers, and their bows were long and of yew they were quick and dexterous archers, and made good use of the bow. Their mode of fighting in the field was almost always afoot, as they assigned their horses to their pages. Keeping themselves in almost circular formation, every two take a lance, carrying it in a manner in which one waits for a boar with a boar-spear. So bound and compact, with lowered lances they marched with slow steps towards the enemy, making a terrible outcry – and their ranks can hardly be pried apart.

It appears by experience that they are more fitted to ride by night and steal than to keep to the field: they succeed rather by the cowardice of our people than because of their own valor. They had ingenious ladders, one piece fitting into the next as in a [slide] trumpet, the largest piece three steps long, with which they could climb the highest tower. And they were the first to bring into Italy the fashion of forming cavalry in lances [of three men each] instead of in the old system of helmets (barbute) or flags (a bandiere).

This section is from The English Traveler to Italy, by George R. Parks (Stanford, 1954)


Rome Spreads Her Wings - Territorial Expansion between the Punic Wars, Gareth C. Sampson - History

Dr Gareth Sampson holds a Phd in Ancient History from Manchester University and now lectures on Roman history. His previous books were the _Defeat of Rome_ (2008), _The Crisis of Rome: Marius and the Jugurthine and Northern Wars_ (2011), _The Collapse of Rome_ (2013) and _The Eagle Spreads Her Wings: Roman Expansion Between the Punic Wars_ (2016), all published by Pen & Sword.

Reviews for Rome, Blood and Politics: Reform, Murder and Popular Politics in the Late Republic

Murder and mayhem in the waning years of the Roman Republic what more could you ask for in a book? This is a tour de force of the public and private machinations of the different characters in this time period of the Roman Republic. I find this book to be not only an enjoyable read, but also indispensable as a handy reference of the time period that it shows. I can easily recommend Dr. Sampson's book to anyone who has an interest in not only the workings of the Roman Republic, but also the time period. -- A Wargamers Needful Things



Kommentaar:

  1. Alfonso

    Dit is interessant. Giving Where can I read about this?

  2. Ashraf

    letterlik verbaas en verheug dat ek nooit sou kon glo dat selfs dit gebeur nie

  3. Bishop

    Dit is jammer dat ek nou nie kan uitdruk nie - dit is verplig om te vertrek. I will return - I will necessarily express the opinion.

  4. Yedidyah

    Ons kan baie oor hierdie vraag praat.

  5. Akinokinos

    Na my mening erken jy die fout. Skryf vir my in PM, ons sal praat.

  6. T'iis

    Even though I am a student of a financial university, the topic is not entirely for my brains. But, it should be noted that it is very useful for ordinary life. Better to see the experience of others



Skryf 'n boodskap