Question on Rome

>lower population

Lol nope

>located near an abundance of other civilisations making it easier to interact and trade ideas and technology as well as rise in wealth

Check

>Fertile lands to grow crops

Check

>Militaristic culture that prided itself on war

Check

>Abolished monarchy and established democracy

Check

>Advanced weaponry and inventions stolen and appropriated from other lands which they conquered and advanced

Check

>Multi-ethnic melting pot with various colonies establishing trade

Check

>Overall pervailing culture with other cultures intergrated within it

Check

This actually surprises me, Is there any source on Rome's population prior to it's Empire?

This, and some other stuff.

Italy is a fertile peninsula in the middle of the Mediterranean world- it's geographic position between the raw materials of the west and the consumer markets of the east made it a good spot. There were a couple reasons it was never the center of everything before the 3rd century B.C., but the Greeks taking the South (and even then Sicily and Syracuse were important) is a factor and a bigger factor is the lack of good agricultural techniques. When these techniques spread west, Italy's population exploded. Combine this with a state like Rome that provided stability and made military expansion and economic exploitation eastly, and Italy could quickly take over the world.

>republicanism
>true democracy
Ehhhh

The Etruscans were pretty good at what they did and the Romans learned well. Greece was spent from years of war against the persians and among the city-states, once they conquered them they absorbed all their expertise and shit (in a way you could argue Greece conquered Rome),

Just fucking stop posting.

>Abolished monarchy and established democracy
>Check
There is no way the Republic could be categorized as a democracy

They were more like a semi-democratic plutocracy.

Conquest of the Greek colonies and city-states in Southern Italy had nothing really directly to do with the Persian Greek Wars. On top of that, after the Diodachi, the Greeks between the Antigonids, Ptolemys, and Selecuids dynasties were constantly squabbling for power and territory.

This weakened Greek unity and political ambitions to present a united front against Roman's rising power with the other Latins and Italic tribes.

Rome had shittons of manpower. They lose an army against their chief rival in a trouncing for the history books, and they simply raise another.

There were no cars. The most optimal way to travel fast and transport goods was by the sea. The mediterranean with it's coastal settlements was the best location for trade and just general civilization in the world because of this reason. This is no longer relevant today when we have airplanes and trains and trucks. which is why the mediterranean is now a shithole.

It was basically like the Simpsons miraculously getting a second wind under David Mirkin and his successors, but then doing that for a full 400 years before Mike Sculy showed up and unintentionally killed the magic of it.

Do you mean that the greeks were in decline or that the polis/city-state was in decline?

The city of Rome is inland and the Romans were not very keen on sailing.

Greeks were the major seafarers and Rome mostly relied on them for naval transport.

>The city of Rome is inland
Rome did not even have a harbor on the Tiber within the city proper. Ostia and later Civitavecchia were used for incoming grain and other transport.

> 80+ lbs armor, weapon, ration, gear
> 20 miles march per day, everyday
> Build fort before night time, every night.
> Disassemble fort in the morning, every morning.
> 25 years service
> 3 in 4 die
> local population see us as oppressors but we are just trying to spread civilization
> Gaius die on patrol today, knew him 15 years
> when will I die? will I ever see Claudia again? Does she even remember me?
> The Sassanids are invading Armenia again
> mfw months long march to the middle east
> mfw sitting ducks against horse archers in desert heat with no water
> mfw sandniggers finally surrenders but the germans broke through the Rhine defenses. Again.
> mfw march hundreds of miles back and we are apparently in a civil war now.
> mfw the land I was promised at end of 25 years was distributed to retried troops so they would join up for one side.
> mfw germans are running wild in gaul because nobody was there to stop them
> mfw incompetent commander lead us into ambush
> mfw recieve flesh wound in minor skirmish
> mfw no antibiotics and wound becomes infected
> mfw no anesthetics for amputation
> mfw bleeding out alone in a tent
> mfw recieve news Claudia has married another man
> mfw just another nobody dying for the personal gain of generals and emperors
> mfw hundreds of years later, people look on Rome's greatness and bewilderly asks "what happened?"

>Why did Rome become arguably one of the Strongest "Nations" on Earth?
Large population drawn and supported by grain dole
Indomitable national character
Patrician culture encouraged (this is a massive understatement) excellence in leadership and action
Willingness to adopt and innovate
Lastly, a guess of mine: republican form of government in addition to large population stoked wartime morale and perseverance

>When it was a decent amount of distance from the traditional centres of Civilization

No disrespect but if you don't know much of anything about a country (former country that is lol) don't make such rash assumptions. The Greek colonies were near them and Rome were in fact influenced by the Greeks insofar as the military is concerned.

The Roman republic formed after the last overthrow of the king, as we are told. This left the Romans to function autonomously and of course interact with it's neighbors diplomatically.

What of it? Simply put Rome entered in alliances which brought them allies and new wars. The Latin league saw Rome enter an alliance to counter the Etruscans. This led to victories and Roman dominance of the Latin league. Rome eventually fought the Latins fora myriad of reasons and came to control them and turn them into "Roman" cities and they henceforth were "Roman colonists" because of Rome cucking them with an influx of Roman citizens taking residence, like Arabs cuck Europe today. The Romans continued this practice all over Italy and the Mediterranean, giving them more reason for foreign intervention.

According to what we are told, it seems Rome did NOT go looking for war directly, but much of the time their allies had asked Rome for military aid or intervention. What caused the beginning of the Samnite wars. What caused each Punic war. Every ally asked Rome for help in war. The Roman military machine was effective, but its true strength lay in its peoples determination, Pyrhus nor Hannibal could make the Romans come to talk peace if the Romans were losing.

That's essentially it. Of course, this portrays Rome as a fucking saint with an empire, and that's what European scholars thought in the 19th century. But where there was evidence, we can see that Rome also had its share of opportunistic wars.

Lastly, remember that Livy was an official historian of the empire, so he may have put Rome in a nice light, good boys who dindu nuffin.

How do you explain all those incursions towards the Parthians/Sassanids then?

they killed jesus

Macedon was doing well, they lost due to military overconfidence.
There was no more city state shit, they were either Hellenic empires or leagues. Did you know Sparta more or less ceased existing about 270BC, obviously the city existed but they were no power and were forced into the Achaean league

3rd Century AD?

Better question, how do you explain the Romans not doing to the Parthian's what they did to Carthage, and Germany what they did to Spain?

Face it, Republican Romans absolutely had more balls for complete conquest than their "imperial" successors.

>But where there was evidence, we can see that Rome also had its share of opportunistic wars.

It's literally right there you faggot

Oh shit wait, I wrote this line but deleted it because I was going off topic and I absent mindedly thought you were quoting this:

>(determination gone for some inexplicable reason after the Republic ended - why no destruction of Parthia like Carthage? Why no conquest of all of Germany like Spain?)

Weird. But to your question, don't ask me, ask Livy. But if you want my answer just re read the last sentence.

>What allowed a people, Who are less civilized and to my knowledge had a lower population, to defeat arguably the most influential states at the time

You make this same question and apply to thousands of events in history, you know that right?

>how do you explain the Romans not doing to the Parthian's what they did to Carthage, and Germany what they did to Spain?
Because the Carthaginians fucked with the Romans one too many times. Their destruction inevitable. Parthia on the other hand only did fringe attempts on messing with the Romans and all of a sudden, Rome wants to conquer them.

>Face it, Republican Romans absolutely had more balls for complete conquest than their "imperial" successors.
Ignorant reasoning. Declaring war for the sake of conquest or having shitty Casus Bellis are dangerous things. In fact, the overstretching of their empire was one of the reasons why they decline.

>Because the Carthaginians fucked with the Romans one too many times. Their destruction inevitable.
Wrong. The Romans and Carthaginians were in fact former allies before the 1st punic war. The Romans landed on Sicily to respond to a request for help from an ally and for conquest which started it all.

>Parthia on the other hand only did fringe attempts on messing with the Romans and all of a sudden, Rome wants to conquer them.
Ignorance at best, lying at worst. Parthia was an enemy and the Romans never finished the job.

>Declaring war for the sake of conquest or having shitty Casus Bellis are dangerous things.
Has nothing to do with the Roman attitude to war changing from republic to empire. In fact Rome still declared war many many times during its imperial years, but never completed it or went anywhere with it. They gave up Dacia. OK, why not give up Britain too since they supposedly conquered Scotland but withdrew after Mons Graupius?

I'll tell you why. No. Balls.

>In fact, the overstretching of their empire was one of the reasons why they decline.
No, Rome was small compared to other empires.

Not him, but campaigns against those eastern empires are often given a casus belli in the sources. Just like the easteners and pretty much everyone did. Even if sometimes they may look a bit obvious or silly like Caracalla "wanting" to marry a parthian princess exclusively to be rejected and start a campaign.

>how do you explain the Romans not doing to the Parthian's what they did to Carthage

Trajan tried that and failed, although being the one closer to achieve it. The augustean strategy of calling them degenerate worthless and adopt a defensive ideology was simply better, the logistics of the time didn't really allow for more expansion against a powerful foe.

>Wrong. The Romans and Carthaginians were in fact former allies before the 1st punic war. The Romans landed on Sicily to respond to a request for help from an ally and for conquest which started it all.
That has nothing to do with it because the Parthians never did anything as destructive as starting the second Punic War. It didn't matter if Carthage was allies with Rome before, by the end of the second Punic War, when Carthage was made a vassal, the Romans didn't give a fuck about past friendliness, after two wars the Romans were pissed. It made all the more sense on why Rome destroyed Carthage as Hannibal was making reforms to make it great again which in of itself is a huge threat to Rome.

>Ignorance at best, lying at worst. Parthia was an enemy and the Romans never finished the job.
You mean enemies after Crassus led that failed attack in Carrhae? Remember, the Romans were the ones to throw the first serious punch as nothing Parthia did before could possibly justify a full on conquest by the Romans. Unless somehow the very existence of an Iranian empire triggers the Romans to conquer it.

>Has nothing to do with the Roman attitude to war changing from republic to empire.
You already said the reason why Rome got into most of it's wars was because an alliances, very rarely do the Romans go into war for the sake of being a dick. Gaul is the exception to this as they were always enemies to the Romans.

>In fact Rome still declared war many many times during its imperial years, but never completed it or went anywhere with it.
Which is a idiotic thing to do. Their conquest of Britannia for example was a disaster and the Roman-Persian wars (started by the Romans) drained nearly all the resources the Romans had and set up the losses Byzantine provinces by the Muslims.

>I'll tell you why. No. Balls.
I'll be honest here, Rome was entirely a military society, so in ways it can't be compared to it's "successors".

Cont.

>No, Rome was small compared to other empires.
False. While Rome may have been smaller compared to say China the size difference between the Parthians and Romans were little.

Why do you think the empire split up? The vast tracks of land the Romans had were too much to govern without revolt and corruption only aided to this. Conquest for the sake of it is stupid and adds unnecessary land.

>hat has nothing to do with it because the Parthians never did anything as destructive as starting the second Punic War
>after two wars the Romans were pissed.

Does not matter. Romans approached war *methodically* once it was being fought, that's what you just don't get. After every war the Romans achieved total victory with the enemy becoming subservient in some way. This did not happen with Parthia. At all. Understand that fact.

>You mean enemies after Crassus led that failed attack in Carrhae?
Does it matter who threw the first punch? Rome bowed down during Augustus' reign. Caesar, a real conqueror was planning to END Parthia but we got his nephew instead.

>You already said the reason why Rome got into most of it's wars was because an alliances
Yes and you went on about the philosophy of war, this is not a philosophical discussion.

>Which is a idiotic thing to do
I agree, the emperor's were never as great as they were made out to be. The glorify stabilizing the Roman empire after civil war but some how they cannot get their tic - tocking brains to realize leaving the enemy politically independent leaves room for future wars.

It was stupid, the highest form of stupidity. Book after book mentions the SAME ENEMY after 100 AD. War against Germans. War against Parthia/Persia. RIDICULOUS!

Do you hear of Spanish raids or Gallic raids into Romans territory in this time? Never.

>I'll be honest here, Rome was entirely a military society,
No, Sparta was. Rome never was but it was half way there. Stopped being true after the Marian reforms and died during Augustus.

I'm talking about future empires in that sentence which had little trouble expanding further and further than Rome ever did.

Maniple formation trumped others, plus they had a plethora of good military leaders, other than that, luck

>tfw Augustus will never humble Antony then have him lead a war against Parthia
I know in real life he fucked up but with the backing of Augustus he could have got a lot more done

>Does not matter. Romans approached war *methodically* once it was being fought, that's what you just don't get. After every war the Romans achieved total victory with the enemy becoming subservient in some way. This did not happen with Parthia. At all. Understand that fact.
I understand but I was mainly addressing the poster who insisted that the Romans dindu nuffin and how the wars with Parthia/Sassania was a huge mistake on Rome's part because as you said, they were never able to conquer them.

>Does it matter who threw the first punch? Rome bowed down during Augustus' reign. Caesar, a real conqueror was planning to END Parthia but we got his nephew instead.
It does because Rome started it via Crassus which ignited Parthian agressiveness which forced the Romans on the offensive, unless Caesar was planning on conquering Parthia before Carrhae

>Yes and you went on about the philosophy of war, this is not a philosophical discussion.
See first point. It devolved into philosophy because the poster made it seem like the Romans were benevolent and never sought serious personal gain.

>I agree, the emperor's were never as great as they were made out to be. The glorify stabilizing the Roman empire after civil war but some how they cannot get their tic - tocking brains to realize leaving the enemy politically independent leaves room for future wars.
It wouldn't have been that bad desu if the emperors maintained a continous policy of peace, something that Augustus tried first. The other way of doing it was by conquest which the Romans were actually very successful at doing if Trajan/Aurelius are to go by.

>War against Germans.
I thought the Romans completely ignored any military activity into Germania after Teutoberg?

>Do you hear of Spanish raids or Gallic raids into Romans territory in this time? Never.
Because the Romans had those territories by the time it became an official empire, though you can probably argue that Gaul made all those expeditions.

Cont

>I'm talking about future empires in that sentence which had little trouble expanding further and further than Rome ever did.
You sure? All the European kingdoms were mostly within the same ballpark compared to the Romans who were surrounded by savage barbarians that could be taken care of. Rome had all of Europe to itself but with them wanting to expand int the middle east with difficulty I digress.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_Roman_Empire

The Greek peninsula had a smaller population but was way more urbanized until the the early Republic period when Italy surpassed the region in population and urbanization. Ancient Aegean was in decline all around at that point.