Nowhere is Hannibal's failure to understand Roman culture clearer than in his expectation that Rome would agree to...

>Nowhere is Hannibal's failure to understand Roman culture clearer than in his expectation that Rome would agree to peace. Had he known his history, he would have recalled that Pyrrhus of Epirus, after smashing the Roman army in battle, had sent emissaries to Rome to begin peace negotiations, but they were dismissed out of hand. The Romans saw war as a relentless struggle, in which every conflict had to end with the total defeat and subjugation of either the enemy or themselves. They were willing to negotiate only as victors. It remains one of Hannibal's great failures that he did not understand the culture and values of the enemy he was fighting.
-Hannibal by Richard Gabriel

So Veeky Forums, why exactly did Rome such a different approach to warfare than all others surrounding them historically that generally took the Hellenic approach (win or lose decisive battle, then negotiate peace)? The Romans seem to have been the first to take a "total war" approach whereby the end is only determined by absolute destruction or subjugation of either side. What about their culture, geography, history, etc was it that made these bastards so tough, brutal, and stubborn?

Autistic barbarians. Once they had annihilated the noble and heroic civilizations around them, the Romans set about stealing the cultural achievements of better Empires. Since the other Empires were eviscerated, the Romans could happily claim that the other civilisations' achievements were, in fact, Roman!

They became so arrogant that they abandoned the Greeks and began the Roman Empire, regressing into their old barbaric ways again. They colonized Gaul and Britannia, making out that this was somehow a great feat. It was nothing compared to the Punic wars bt from then on the majority of Romans spend the centuries screaming "WE WUZ HELLENIC AN SHIET". Only a few good Emperors humbled themselves before Greece and Carthage. The Emperors only kept their fragile sanity by deluding themselves into believing that the USA- erm I mean, the Roman Empire had some "destiny" to dominate the world, and that they were Gods. Ofc the Roman Empire descended into turbo-autism after the good Emperors were gone.

The Aspergers continued with the ERE Byzantines. They wuz Romans dat wuz Greeks n shit.

When I was 7 I thought the Romans were "cool". I grew up, did you?

Well... all the drama aside, I know that the Romans did have a lot of their identity rooted in Hellenic culture, but it seems in so many ways they defined themselves as being something of an antithesis to Greek culture as well. Namely what I said above about customs and practices in war. Also their belief that they were descended from the Trojans, whom they saw as nobler and more honest people than the somewhat perfidious and clever Greeks. From what I understand, they regarded the Greeks as people who created a lot of great things that were useful, but lived in a vile and decadent society (yes, I understand the hypocrisy of one thinking Greeks were decadent and Romans werent).
I dont think the Romans were faultless, but I certainly think they are afforded a lot more credit than being called autistic barbarians. For better or worse, they have contributed a great many things to Western Civilization. Dont you?

That's actually a very interesting question.

One could look at the origins of Rome itself, a story of Romulus and Remus, Romulus going so far as to kill his brother over a disagreement.

Maybe it has to do with the culture of the local tribes that would unite to create the greater tapestry that became known as Rome.

But they certainly had a unique look on war with no half measures and its something that nobody at the time could comprehend. Rome would never play second fiddle to somebody else. They either won completely or they would be destroyed completely. But they would never negotiate with barbarians at their gate.

Perhaps it had to do with the unique ability to continue throwing manpower at a problem until it simply ceased being a problem. In a time when one or two armies was all that a people could muster and if it lost, that was the end, Rome could lose 4 armies and still have the manpower to raise a fifth, a sixth, and a seventh to throw at the enemy until they won. It made fighting them nearly impossible due to attrition taking its toll and once your army broke, there simply was no way to form another in time to stop the roman threat.

But I can't say which came first, the outlook or the manpower. And to fast forward I wonder if this mentality eventually led to the fall of the West and its abandonment to the continuation of the East. When it came time to negotiate, the Western Emperors (Honorius especially) failed to recognize the severity of the threats they faced and their own weakness to stop them.

While the East fully recognized the costs of such a harsh stance and simply decided to pay their problems away.

Anyway, I'm rambling here OP but thanks for a good thread.

>I grew up
Judging by your post you didn't, son

>The Romans seem to have been the first to take a "total war" approach whereby the end is only determined by absolute destruction or subjugation of either side.
Nope.

The concept of wars for annihilation predated Rome and was present in many societies. Assyria and Warring States of China come to mind. Sun Tzu after all said "war is a matter of life and death for a state" and he was talking of warfare in the warring states.

no

Thanks for an amazing response honestly.

Its really puzzling to me honestly. I feel like it is one of history's great questions. So much of what they did was so bizarre and different from everyone around them. I feel like a lot of good work needs to be done on figuring out what gave rise to these deep differences. I think that Rome really was "hellenic" superficially.

>So Veeky Forums, why exactly did Rome such a different approach to warfare than all others surrounding them historically that generally took the Hellenic approach (win or lose decisive battle, then negotiate peace)? The Romans seem to have been the first to take a "total war" approach whereby the end is only determined by absolute destruction or subjugation of either side. What about their culture, geography, history, etc was it that made these bastards so tough, brutal, and stubborn?

THE RADICAL SPIRIT OF ABSOLUTE VICTORY, OR ABSOLUTE FAILURE, AMONG SOUTHERN EUROPEANS, WAS A DORIAN TRAIT WHICH FIRSTLY MANIFESTED WITH THE SPARTANS, AND LATER WITH THE ROMANS.

IT IS THE ATTITUDE OF THOROUGHNESS CHARACTERISTIC OF ARYANIDS PEOPLES.

ahhhhh right. Assyria. I totally forgot. Perhaps let me rephrase. In its ecosystem (that being the Mediterranean region mostly dominated by Hellenic practices and customs extending beyond Greece itself, into Carthage, parts of Italy, and even the Iberian Peninsula) Rome seemed to have developed this completely different and severe approached to war, where it was extremely out of place.