Why Rome\'s allies were so loyal?

[princeofcarthage]

Hey guys,


My question is something that has been bugging me for a long time. Why were Rome's allies so loyal when Hannibal invaded Italy? Hannibal did everything he could think of to seduce Rome's allies to come and join him. But very few of them turned their backs on Rome. This was actually a turning point in the Second Punic War.

[Matthius_Titus]

My answer would be fear. Hannibal had nothing to offer anyone if they joined whereas Roman allies were getting rich and had all the Romans could offer. Put it this way, If you were a barbarian or starving country and the romans came along and built you up and fed you and protected you would you join someone that was out to destroy that? This has been a lesson learned through out history where countries would side with one and then switch because they made a mistake. Romes allies rather be safe then sorry so they didn't want to chance it.

[Theodosius the Great]

I think Matthew nailed it on the head. Most allies knew the terrible retribution that would ensue if they crossed Rome and ended up on the losing side.

Another contributing reason behind the allies' loyalty was simply that Carthage, a Semitic, Punic speaking civilization, was more alien to them than their fellow Italic overlords or even their Greek speaking neighbors. What kind of permanent outcome could emerge from such an alliance? The maxim of 'Better the devil you know than the devil you don't' probably applied to the allies' thinking.

~Theo

[Lyceum]

I think fear would have been one of the biggest factors, that and the general unwillingness to shake the status quo. I don't think they were sitting around thanking Rome for "civilisation" (that is "our" view) and I really doubt that the Carthaginians were so much more alien (!) to them in the ever fluctuating Mediterranean (that is certainly the modern view of the non specialist, tbh). Fear is a great motivator, especially when one considers Rome's recent history. They really did seem as if they can do the near impossible.

Also you have to consider the actual situation in Italia at the time as well as the lead up to it. It's really hard to draw firm lines on this subject due to lack of really useful evidence.

[Theodosius the Great]

I don't think they were sitting around thanking Rome for "civilisation" (that is "our" view)

I agree no one thanked Rome but they were conscience of their cultural indebtedness to Greco-Roman civilization as opposed to Carthaginian.

and I really doubt that the Carthaginians were so much more alien (!) to them in the ever fluctuating Mediterranean (that is certainly the modern view of the non specialist, tbh).

I should clarify that this view is neither modern nor even my own. It happens to be the ancient (!) view of both the Romans and the Greeks which is all that matters to this thread. Centuries of bad blood accumulated between Carthage and the Greco-Roman world by the time the Hannibalic War broke out. Cultural differences were surely played up as part of war propaganda. And we can be sure that this propaganda was not limited to the confines of Rome but was rather disseminated among her allies. So, I believe this was a factor in choosing to stay loyal to Rome.

~Theo

[princeofcarthage]

Centuries of bad blood accumulated between Carthage and the Greco-Roman world by the time the Hannibalic War broke out. Cultural differences were surely played up as part of war propaganda. And we can be sure that this propaganda was not limited to the confines of Rome but was rather disseminated among her allies. So, I believe this was a factor in choosing to stay loyal to Rome.

~Theo[/quote]

I agree and i just thought of another reason to back your answer about the propaganda. The Roman allies were probably told by Roman propaganda that the Carthaginians were unwashed barbarians (which allot of them were :wink: ) and that they held horrible rituals to worship their gods, which was also true. Because the Carthaginians participated in horrible child sacrifices to their god Baal, as told in Shelby Brown's book "Late Carthaginian Child Sacrifice and Sacrificial Monuments in their Mediterranean Context"
I suspect the clean Italians did not want to be ruled by such a people.

[Theodosius the Great]

And Jewish sources, including the Bible, confirm the Roman and Greek accounts of human/ child sacrifice as a Pheonician mode of worship. So, I'm inclined to believe that the practice was accepted in Carthaginian society. But it may have been over-emphasized or exaggerated in some or all of the sources in some way, such as, the frequency or scale of such sacrifices. Either way the practice made them religously distinct enough both to the Romans' and my way of thinking.

I suspect the clean Italians did not want to be ruled by such a people.

Likewise. There were other significant differences that I think shouldn't be either dismissed or underestimated. I've already mentioned the linguistic barrier. The Italians were primarily landlubbers while the Carthaginians were seafarers. Why would the allies think that Carthage could protect or incorporate territories that were inland as theirs were?

The Roman allies were probably told by Roman propaganda that the Carthaginians were unwashed barbarians (which allot of them were )

Right, Rome's allies' probably didn't feel any affinity for Hannibal's men which were mostly Spaniards, Numidians, Gauls, and Libyans who were ravaging their lands from one end to the other.

Fear is a great motivator, especially when one considers Rome's recent history. They really did seem as if they can do the near impossible.

Also you have to consider the actual situation in Italia at the time as well as the lead up to it.

Agreed. I think most Italians remembered the outcome of the Pyrrhic War when they experienced Hannibal's invasion.

Establishing a Carthaginian province in Italy seems less feasible to me than an Epirote one. Pyrrhus was a Greek and a king whose kingdom was closer to Italy. As a Greek he could legitimately claim kinship with the Italiot Greeks and inspire their loyalty. With his kingly prestige he could and did exert greater international influence than Hannibal who was merely a warlord with very limited influence, inferior resources, and precariously stretched supply lines. If Hannibal was trying to make southern Italy another province of the Barcids then I think he was overreaching more so than Pyrrhus. If he wasn't trying to establish a permanent presence but rather to force Rome to come to terms then why should the allies have defected to him when they know he's going to leave them unprotected?

As Lyceum said, the status quo was much more attractive than an uncertain future.

~Theo

[Quintius Clavus]

Simon James makes the point in his new book, Rome and the Sword, that Rome used two approaches: The sword, meaning willingness to fight (and keep fighting) until the matter was decided in Rome's favor, and an open hand, meaning the willingness to share/extend Latin rights and Roman citizenship, especially among the elites of their erstwhile enemies and future allies in Italy at first and later elsewhere. Rome did remarkably well using those two approaches -and continued to use them mostly successfully.

Hannibal, when he came to Italy, made sure he found help from among the Gauls, as they were really Rome's big "boogy men" during the Republic. The Romans had a viceral fear and hatred of the Gauls going back to their earliest encounters with them and the "memory" of the taking of Rome by Brennus.

[Draconis]

Seems to me that in just about every war in history the enemy was demonised. In the case of Carthage and human sacrifice, etc. The job would be very easy. No doubt travellers to Carthage would have confirmed the propaganda and underlined it. If you were an ally of Rome, even if you weren't blissfully happy with Rome, who would you rather be subject to? Likewise, should the Carthaginians, start looking around for victims to offer to their gods, would you want them to look over at you and no Rome to save you? Same reason the neighbors of the Aztecs were pretty happy when Cortez showed up. Given the similarlities Rome and its allies shared, and the really alien culture of the Carthaginians, throw in keeping yourself and your family away from altars to Ba'al, if it were me, I'd remain loyal to Rome too. Besides, Hannibal wasn't going to be there forever, but when the enemy went home Rome would still be there and want explanations

[Gaius Colletti]

Actually didn't northern parts of Italy ally with Hannibal in an effort to get rid of Roman rule?

[Quintius Clavus]

What we call Northern Italy was the territory of various Gallic tribes, many of whom did ally with Hannibal. It is not so well known, but at about the same time as Cannae was fought and lost, the Romans also had an army in Gallic territory up north. That army was trapped by the Gauls and wiped out; the commander's skull was turned into a drinking cup. The Roman army - a couple legions strong - was marching through some forest; the Gauls felled trees along its column of march, breaking it up and massacred the entire army.

Capua and others of the allies in southern Italy also defected, though not necessarily willingly. For example, Tarentum's lower classes supported Hannibal and attacked the citadel in the city, which was garrisoned by Roman troops, but many of the nobility did not want to defect from Rome, but their hands were forced. The Greek cities in the south, to a certain extent, resented Rome's hegemony.

There was a point when the allies who stayed the course pleaded that they could no longer supply men for the armies raised to fight Hannibal. It was worked out; Rome was able to raise new armies including the usual ratios of allied troops as needed and carry on the fight.

The Romans, of course, took revenge especially against the Gauls.

[Theodosius the Great]

What we call Northern Italy was the territory of various Gallic tribes, many of whom did ally with Hannibal.

Right, the river Rubicon demarcated Roman territory (i.e. Italia) from Gaul (i.e. Cisalpine Gaul). If any of those Gallic tribes were allies I'm sure they were of the lowest status. There were several varying degrees of alliances negotiated between the Romans and their subordinate client states especially in this period.

~Theo

[Michael J. Taylor]

Of course many allies weren't loyal, especially after Cannae when the writing seemed to be on the wall. Most defections were in Southern Italy, particularly the Samnites, Lucanians, and Bruttians.

The most startling defection was undoubtedly Campania, mostly because the Campanians weren't just allies, they were Roman citizens (albeit sine suffragio). To the north Etruscans were restless, and this required a major Roman military presence in the region to deter further rebellion.

Fear of Roman retaliation must certainly have played a role in keeping allies: Rome routinely devoted the vast bulk of her military resources to Italy, and many of these legions were deployed not so much against Hannibal as to watch over various parts of Italy.

Many of Rome's allies stayed loyal no doubt because they sincerely believed that the Roman alliance system represented a reasonable system for defending Italy, and Hannibal offered little in the way of alternative (indeed, his heavy use of Celtic allies may have alienated many Italians ever leery of Celtic invasion). The interception of the Carthaginian-Macedonian treaty indicated that Hannibal envisioned a peace with Rome left standing, so a wary Italian ally might note that even if Carthaginian armies departed Italy in victory, a disgruntled Rome would be left behind with grudges to settle.