19:34
The Roman conquest of mainland Greece from 214 to 146 BCE marked the end of the Hellenistic age and the rise of Latinate dominance in the Eastern Mediterranean. After centuries of autonomy, the Hellenes found themselves under Roman rule, beginning a period of subjugation to a foreign power. Historians have spent countless generations analysing the reasons why the young Latin Republic, having barely expanded out of Italy, managed to conquer myriad Greek cities and Hellenistic Empires older and larger than itself. The Greeks' chaotic
geopolitical scene surely played a role, as did the Eternal City's battle-hardened legions. But there are other factors as well. Geography, Economy and History all played a role. So, why did Rome succeed in conquering Greece? Why did the Greeks not manage to stage a counter-offensive to the Roman onslaught? And how did this conquest impact the Eastern Mediterranean? Welcome to our video on the reasons behind the Roman conquest of Hellas. The Geopolitical Factor: The first and most eternally important factor in Rome's eventual victory over Greece was geopolitical. The Senatus Populusque Romanus, despite frequent changes in their highest offices of state,
took a remarkably long view of their expansion into the Hellenic heartland. Scholars debate just why the Romans expanded into Greece. Some claim it was a straightforward conquest driven by a desire for land and prestige, while others that it was a much more ad-hoc process of adapting to provocations by rivals and invocations by allies. Whatever the case, the Romans were always pragmatic when expanding into Hellas, building local alliances and setting up springboards instead of diving in headfirst. For example,
during the First and Second Macedonian Wars of 215 to 204 and 200 to 197, the Romans gained the allegiance of the Aetolian League, a confederation of city-states in the southwestern part of peninsular Greece. Using the Aetolians' strategic location near the Isthmus of Corinth, the Romans could bring in troops in their war against the Kingdom of Macedon under King Philip V. The Romans achieved this by inserting themselves into the politics of Greek city-states, receiving embassies and gaining friends and vassals amongst the Greeks. The Republic was careful to alienate
its new allies by being overbearing and by withdrawing most troops after each war. Moreover, the Romans kept their alliances diversified to avoid becoming overly reliant on any one local polity. For instance, at different times in the 2nd Century, they both allied or fought against the Achaean League of the Peloponnese and the Aetolian League. If one League misbehaved, they simply went to the other. This realist foreign policy did much to help the Romans conquer Hellas. By contrast, the Hellenes were not a united bloc and thus could not pursue a unified foreign policy
against the Romans. The Eastern Mediterranean, including mainland Greece, the Aegean islands, and the Hellenistic states of Anatolia, Egypt, and Syria, was in a state of geopolitical anarchy, constantly bickering with each other. No single pole of power arose in the wake of the death of Alexander the Great in 323. Rather, the Wars of the Diadochi between his successors and the Wars in Greece between Macedon, Epiros, and southern Greek confederacies provided ample chaos for Rome to exploit. For instance, the naval and trade hub of Rhodes was facing major issues with
Cretan pirates in the 200s. This led to the Cretan War of 205 to 200 between Rhodes, the Kingdom of Pergamon in Asia Minor and other naval poleis on one side, and Macedon, Sparta and pirates on the other. The war ended in the Rhodians' favour, but only after the Romans swept in and initiated the Second Macedonian War in 200. As a result, the pirates were defeated by Rhodes, who drifted ever closer to Rome as a more suitable patron over other states. Pergamon followed a similar policy throughout the 2nd Century, becoming an ally of Rome. They did this in opposition to
the encroaching Seleukid empire of Syria, whose ambitions for Asia Minor included the conquest of the rich polity. In essence, many Greek polities reasoned that, in a war among multiple stronger competitors, securing the support of the strongest and most geographically distant patron would ensure their freedom. Thus, it was for this reason that they sought the patronage of Rome against rivals who were closer at hand. In short, the Romans' prudent foreign policy and the political disunity of the Hellenic world made the former's victory a logical conclusion.
The Geographic Factor: Another factor explaining the Romans' victory over the Greeks is geography. For a start, the highly fragmented geography of mainland Greece made political unity difficult. With the exception of the conquests of Philip II of Macedon in the 4th Century, Greece was hardly ever united. So how did the Romans manage to accomplish a feat not done since the time of Alexander the Great's father? A major factor was naval dominance, achieved primarily through Rome's alliances with naval powers. Rome's bloody wars with the sea power
of Carthage had resulted in the development of a strong navy. However, more than their own ships, the Romans relied on the seagoing prowess of their Greek allies and vassals. The Kingdom of Pergamon, for example, dominated the southern Aegean Sea with its navy. It, alongside other maritime Greek allies, gave Rome a crucial logistical advantage, allowing it to resupply its armies by sea and, consequently, dominate land campaigns. Naval dominance also provided the Republic with some vantage points in the Aegean from which to slowly isolate and defeat its enemies. Rome
was also keen on ruining possible rivals who could counter them at sea. The destruction of the naval power of Corinth in 146 was driven by such logic. The Corinthians hoped to bring other Peloponnesian cities into the Achaean League, and given their naval and economic power, they could have succeeded. The exemplary punishment of the Romans by levelling the city, killing its men, and enslaving its women was driven by a need to prevent a naval rival from gaining naval leverage. Of course, Rome's advantages were not only at sea, and over its century of conquest, the Romans
leveraged the hilly land terrain of the Hellenic world to their advantage. Two battles illustrate this phenomenon: the Battle of Cynoscephale in 197 and the Battle of Pydna in 168. Both battles were fought against the Antigonid Kingdom of Macedon, the former against King Philip V and the latter under his son, Perseus. In the Battle of Cynoscephale, the Macedonians stumbled into the hills of the local terrain due to fog, making it difficult to form their traditional phalanxes. With their more flexible manipular formations, the Romans pushed them up the hills'
peaks and ultimately overpowered them. The hilly terrain of Cynoscephale was a gift to the Romans. While other factors contributed to their victory, such as personnel and supply shortages amongst the Macedonians, the Romans certainly had a better understanding of fighting in bad geography than their Greek rivals. In the Battle of Pydna, the Romans were the ones on the high ground. Their camp was situated on the foothills facing Pydna, with the Macedonians setting camps near the shore where the terrain was flat. Thus, when the battle began, the Macedonians pushed the
Romans back by maintaining formation. However, this early victory proved to be a boomerang. When the marching Macedonians reached the hills, their formation crumbled and their flanks became exposed. The Romans sent people to the flanks and turned the tide of the battle. Eventually, yet another Roman victory was achieved through clever use of geography. At both grand and small scales, the SPQR ensured geographic dominance to assert its political conquest of Hellas. The Diplomatic Factor: As touched on previously during our discussion on the geopolitics of the Hellenistic Greek world, another factor that
allowed Rome to vassalize much of Hellas was the prevailing hatred the southern Greeks held towards their ethnic cousins who had dominated them for centuries: the Macedonians. Philip of Macedon had forcibly unified Greece in the 4th Century, and the Greeks had revolted against the Macedonians in the Lamian War of 323-322. That revolt had failed, but in the ensuing Wars of the Hellenistic Age, various Greek poleis had gained their independence from the Macedonians. The northern Hellenes of Macedon were perceived as autocratic and semi-barbarous peoples, and their Greekness was
sometimes rejected. This is partly why the chaos we discussed in the Geopolitics section unfolded: there was simply too much anti-Macedonian sentiment in many Greek poleis for the largest military power in Greece to assert its control. Similar sentiments emerged whenever a Hellenistic ruler was getting too powerful. For instance, the Seleukid King Antiochos III the Great managed to solidify his control over Asia Minor in the early 190s. This was seen as a threat by some Greek leagues and states, such as Pergamon, and they thus allied with Rome against the Seleukids
in the Roman-Seleukid War. The fear of autocratic hegemony, innate among Hellenic states which had seen Macedonian rulers try to control them, made them wary of the despots of the north and east. The Romans, ever the shrewd diplomats, understood the value of Greek freedom as a propaganda tool. Thus, they postured themselves as champions of Greek autonomy whenever possible before unleashing their brutal armies upon Greece. There is no greater example of this Roman strategy than Flamininus, enemy of Philip V. When he arrived in Greece in 198 to fight Philip in Greece, he went
to a conference of Greek states in Aous Gorge and demanded that all Macedonian garrisons in Greece be removed. Using his Philhellenic credentials, he claimed that states that had these garrisons, such as Thessaly, were not free and had to be liberated from the Macedonian yoke. Flamininus continued this rhetoric after his victory at Cynoscephale. He went to the Isthmian Games, an important sacred sports competition near Corinth in 196 BCE, and made the following proclamation according to the Historian Plutarch: And the herald, coming forward into the midst of the spectators, made proclamation that the Roman senate and Titus Quinctius Flamininus proconsular general, having conquered
King Philip and the Macedonians, restored to freedom, without garrisons and without imposts, and to the enjoyment of their ancient laws, the Corinthians, the Locrians, the Phocians, the Euboeans, the Achaeans of Phthiotis, the Magnesians, the Thessalians, and the Perrhaebians. This proclamation exhibits the genius of Roman diplomacy. While they were expanding their control over the Greek peninsula. They were framing it as liberation from familiar autocrats. The Romans were thus seen as allies rather than conquerors, despite being non-Hellenic peoples. Leveraging
anti-Macedonian sentiment and playing to the Greeks' fears allowed Rome to continue gaining economic and political influence. The Roman tactic of withdrawing legions after long campaigns and slowly building their military presence allowed them to pick off the disunited Greeks one by one. Eventually, all of Hellas had been conquered by them, and when the Greeks realised their conquest, it was too late to mount any reasonable resistance. Diplomacy and psychological operations often win wars, and in the Roman case, they were crucial in the capture of Greece.
The Military Factor: The last, and certainly not least of the factors which enabled the conquest of Hellas by Rome was military in nature. In essence, the Romans drew on their experience fighting the Carthaginians, as well as new military tactics, to defeat the Greeks and their often rigid approach to warfare. We have already mentioned some elements of Roman military excellence which gave them an upper hand over the Hellenes, but it is important to understand what those elements were. In both the Battles of Cynoscephale and Pydna, the Roman formation of the
legion proved itself to be much more flexible than the most innovative of Greek infantry formations, the Macedonian phalanx. The phalanx relied on a rigid, unbreakable line of soldiers with their long sarissae, the massively long spears that gave them victory over the Achaemenid Persians. This formation, as we have already seen, was not good for uneven terrain. The Roman legion, by contrast, was far more flexible. Roman shields provided protection against Sarissae and could switch formations based on the terrain. In addition, the Romans were more than capable of adapting
Greek customs, which gave them an edge in battle. When they first arrived in Hellas, the Romans were not particularly good at cavalry, with historians like Polybius noting that the Macedonians were far better at fighting on horseback. However, they worked closely with local interlocutors and, by the Second Macedonian War, had managed to build a capable cavalry force. The Romans were also keen on maintaining a strong defence, whether in fortifying their camps near strategic locations or in ensuring they had a strong defensive line. The Greeks, especially the units using sarissae,
focused on offence and on slowly yet methodically overpowering the enemy. When the two forces met, the Romans, the immovable object, defeated the Hellenes, the unstoppable force. The Roman military was also strong in another aspect: experience. This is because their constant fighting against diverse enemies, such as in the Punic Wars against Carthage, gave them tactical and military experience that many Hellenic poleis lacked. Greek poleis, with the exception of mercenary contingents that fought throughout the Mediterranean, usually fielded
citizen forces that fought around Greece. The Macedonians were perhaps the most battle-hardened, having fought throughout Greece and close to non-Greek peoples like the Illyrians and Thracians. But even they did not have the breadth of experience of Roman soldiers and officers, who had amassed experience from the Second Punic War across terrain and various logistical challenges. The Hellenistic states of the East also possessed such forces, but were weakened or only partially present in the Greek military theatre and thus had limited impact. In addition,
the Roman army was more professionalized than the Greek one. The reforms of the 1st Century BCE by figures such as Gaius Marius, Gaius Julius Caesar, and Caesar Augustus had not yet occurred, so the Roman Army still relied on volunteers. However, some proto-military standardization had emerged under the leadership of luminaries such as Scipio Africanus by the 2nd Century, when most of the conquest of Greece occurred. These veterans, who had fought in Spain and North Africa, were capable in a variety of officer and support roles. Their deep knowledge of the art and science
of war surpassed that of citizen-soldiers in Greek poleis, and even that of experienced high-ranking Macedonian officers. As a result, Rome's higher level of professionalism was instrumental to the morale, logistics, and tactics of the Eternal City, which enabled it to defeat Hellas. Conclusion: The defeat of the Greeks by the Romans is a multifaceted affair. The Romans achieved incredible military and economic cohesion, while the Greeks had exhausted their resources amid the geopolitical chaos of the Hellenistic epoch. In addition, Rome was relatively united while the Hellenes were arguing among themselves,
giving the Latins an opportunity to exploit and meddle. And, of course, the Romans' close study of Greece's geography and oceanography was an indispensable asset. Finally, Roman diplomacy showed a lucidity and long-sightedness that enabled them to slowly build a sphere of influence in Greece and eventually overcome potential hegemonic rivals such as Macedon. And thus, the sun on Hellenic freedom set. But it was not forgotten, and millennia later it would be sung again, in poems like that of Lord Byron: On that sweet shore the blue Aegean laves, Where loveliness is wedded to decay,-
Beauty to desolation,-'mid the graves Of an immortal race, and ruins, gray With the dim veil of years, a sleeper lay;- And in his dream, Time's never-ebbing tide Rolled back, and bore him to that earlier day, When Greece was decked in beauty, like a bride, Glory upon her path and freedom by her side. More videos on the ancient world are on the way, so make sure you are subscribed and have pressed the bell button to see it. Please consider liking, subscribing, commenting, and sharing - it helps immensely. Recently, we have started releasing weekly patron and YouTube member exclusive content, consider joining their ranks via the link in the description or button under the video to watch these weekly videos,
learn about our schedule, get early access to our videos, access our private discord, and much more. This is the Kings and Generals channel, and we will catch you on the next one.
