Unequivocally, the Punic and Gothic Wars serve as monumental events in Ancient History, entailing significant implications and implying both conflicts to be of significant importance. Within the historical framework, the term “turning point” embodies a pivotal juncture, drastically altering the course of history and inciting paradigmatic shifts in socio-political dynamics and military strategy/innovations. Therefore, the Punic and Gothic Wars can be deemed ‘turning points.’ The Punic Wars (264 - 146BC), characterised by Roman military superiority saw the “destruction of Carthage,” (Richard Miles) in which the rising power, Rome, decisively defeated the Maritime strength of Carthage, shifting the balance of power in the Mediterranean region. …show more content…
Recognising the requisite control for this territory, the employment of military strategy proved imperative in victory for the numerically disadvantaged Rome, through the adaptability and the military innovation of the ‘corvus.’ Outclassed in naval abilities, Rome which was acclaimed for its land-based infantry sought dominance over the waters, utilising a shipwrecked Carthaginian boat as a template (according to ancient historian Polybius), and creating its first significant navy by 260BC (consisting of 100 large quinqueremes and 20 smaller tri Now stronger, yet still inferior to the Carthaginian military which “was characterized by its professional standing army and powerful navy” (J.C. Coulston) of 300 ships, Rome made use of their legionnaires through the creation of the corvus, a wooden boarding ramp. This critical innovation would alter the tide of war, as “Naval combat would become a land battle,” historian Vedran Bileta, transforming the warfare into Rome’s preferred and superior infantry-based battle. Ancient historian Polybius recounts, “Whenever a Carthaginian approached a Roman ship, he found its Corvus hanging over him,” suggesting the adaptability and widespread implementation of the crucial corvus, validating the brilliance of the Roman military and proving essential for their success. The …show more content…
Before the Gothic Wars, the Visigoth’s isolated, 1-1 centred fighting style proved ineffective, triggering a necessary shift in the style of warfare for glory over the esteemed Roman infantry, following rising tensions between the Visigoths and local Roman authorities. Upon conflict in the Battle of Adrianople (378AD), military reform manifested in the form of a structured cavalry, which “appeared in support of its infantry and turned the tide of the battle,” (Historian Mike Anderson) descending upon the Romans, ruining their formation to the point that “companies were so crowded together that hardly anyone could pull out his sword” (Ancient Historian Ammianus). The battle “launched the medieval practice of knighthood by proving that cavalry was superior to infantry,” historian Mike Anderson, proving the conflict to be a turning point possessing long-term implications, shaping centuries of warfare. The strategic brilliance of the Visigoth’s King Fritigern, would severely weaken the Roman Empire, causing “an emperor (Valens) [to die] with tens of thousands of irreplaceable men” (Ammianus XXXI 12). The loss at Adrianople had significant implications, leaving the successor, Theodosius, “with a diminished and demoralised military
“This account I have given the reader, not so much with the intention of commending the Romans, as of comforting those that have been conquered by them, and for the deterring others from attempting innovations under their government. This discourse of the Roman military conduct may also perhaps be of use to such of the curious as are ignorant of it, and yet have a mind to know it.” –excerpt from “Description of the Roman Army,” by Josephus
After the Costly victory of the Civil War, the Union need to reunite. The Union needed to readmit the rebellious southern states back into the country. Some Americans wanted to punish the south because of the war. They wanted to brutally reunify the country. Others, seeking a much more kinder approach, wanted to reunify the nation in a much more generous way. Both sides of the debate, wanted African Americans to have their freedom however. The problem for President Abraham Lincoln was difficult to answer, and had a detrimental impact on the United States that would last an eternity. Should the reconstruction plan be based on punishment or reunification? What are the civil liberties given to the newly emancipated African Americans? What should
The Punic War, Battle of Karbala and Crusades were all bloody battles with meanings behind them and the earliest examples of conflict. Punic War, a bloody battle between two nations, Rome and Carthage. A battle over land and Carthage not having a strong military as Rome, was defeated. Battle of Karbala a religious battle between Muhammad’s relatives and supporters vs the non believers. Crusades a mission for the holy land and a way to end Feudalism in Western Europe, turned into a defeat for the Europeans, sending them into the Dark Ages.
In the epic poem of Beowulf, written by an unknown monk in about 725 AD, the Anglo-Saxon virtue of comitatus is displayed as a slowly dying aspect of life. Comitatus is the basic idea that everyone protects the king at all costs even if it means a warrior giving up his own life, and if a king is killed, the warriors must avenge the death of the king or they can no longer serve as warriors for the next king. This value of comitatus is displayed mostly through the three battles that Beowulf encounters during the epic poem. An analysis of the three battles is important because Beowulf’s choice of weapons, behavior of the Thanes, and preparation for and attitude toward battle all emphasize the death of the Anglo-Saxon virtue of comitatus.
Over the course of one-hundred years the Mediterranean antiquity was rocked by an ancient cold war between the North African seafaring state of Carthage, and the newly rising city of Rome located on the Italian Peninsula. In the course of two major wars and one extended three year long siege of Carthage itself Rome would conquer its last major foe and turn the Mediterranean into a Roman lake.
The Trojan War and its characters are detailed in the writings of Homer, Vergil, Dante and many others. It is a fantastical tale of a decade-long siege of a powerful city by a massive pan-hellenic force. However, even though it has proved to be such a rich source of inspiration for writers, poets and artists throughout history, it is debated whether it actually took place. Heinrich Schliemann famously said “I have gazed on the face of Agamemnon.” on discovering tombs with the bodies of Mycenaean chieftains in Turkey. The German businessman-turned-archaeologist claimed to have discovered the city of Troy at the hill now called Hisarlik – about three miles from the Dardanelles. However, his claims are still disputed today. Before tackling the question of whether the Trojan War actually occurred, we must ask in what form. What exactly do we mean by “the Trojan War”? There is no definitive version of the events in the war, as our knowledge of it comes from a myriad different sources. Then we should consider Schliemann’s discoveries, and the other archaeological evidence for the Trojan War. Finally, after we have defined “Trojan War” in context of archaeology and historical fact, we must then draw conclusions about the extent to which archaeology proves its historical authenticity.
The Punic Wars left an impact on Western Civilization because it was a turning point for Rome. Rome used to be a tiny city-state that had no potential to become an imperial power, by the time the Punic Wars are won, Romans would have dominance over the Mediterranean power. Rome’s survival was challenged over and over again, but Rome thrived on their victories. But one by one, city-states joined Rome. This was allowing them to gain more power. Carthage was fearful of Rome and it escalated into a conflict, which led to the Punic Wars. (Frankforter & Spellman, 141) The Punic Wars are made up of three different wars. The Carthaginians lost all three wars. The cost of the first war was that the Carthaginians lost Sicily and they had to pay reparations. The cost of the
If the second Punic war is to be discussed, I think it is very important to discuss the first Punic war and its motivations and outcomes, because there is a significant link between the two. Of course, as we know a second of anything is made possible by the first, and in the case of the Punic wars, the first war not only made way for the second, it also gave birth and motivation to one of the greatest and most influential participants of the second Punic war, Hannibal. As we explore the dusk of the first Punic war to the dawn of the second, we can see how Hannibal as a military commander was destined to wreak havoc on the Roman military.
In the battle of Mylae, Rome showcased their initiative and offensive strategy in their use of the Raven, to transform the battle from naval to land in accordance with their strengths, gaining valuable advantage. Once Carthage was vulnerable due to military defeat, Rome opportunistically seized Sardinia, revealing their eagerness to expand the Roman empire and steal Carthage 's power. The ultimatum directed at Carthage to hand over Hannibal or face war, was a reflection of their opportunism and hegemony. In yielding, Carthage would have entailed the loss of the entire empire, as the majority of allies and Carthaginians control was bound to the Barcid family (Rosenstein, 2006). Rome recognised this, and took the opportunity to gain territory and oppress Carthage, as the odds of the Second Punic war were very much in Rome 's favour before the alliance of Hannibal and Phillip V of Macedon. This was an offensive move by Rome, as Carthage avoided breaking the treaty until absolutely necessary, to avoid provoking Rome into war. Unfortunately for Carthage, the mighty power was actively waiting for an excuse and immediately seized the warfare opportunity. After their victory of the 2nd Punic War, Rome showcased their attacking characteristics in continuing to enter wars and expand their territory
Since the beginning of time, man has waged war on his neighbors, his friends and his enemies. In many cases these wars were caused by power-hungry nations that were in the process of expanding their empire and ended up stepping on the toes of another superpower or ally of a superpower. In the case of the first Punic War between Rome and Carthage, Carthage was extending its empire and they stepped on Rome’s toes. During the course of this war the winner was unclear but at times victory seemed eminent for both sides until Rome finally won. The Romans had control in the first part of the war but this would not last. After the Romans first win they decided that they needed a victory over the city of Carthage but this would turn the tides in favor of the Carthaginians. For some 15 years after this defeat of Rome the tides went back and forth between the two but would eventually lead to the Romans victory. After the victory, Rome made some very harsh demands and Carthage filled those demands even though some of them were very extreme.
The cause of the Second Punic War is an issue of some great debate. Polybius is someone who gives a very good account of the events that led to the war, blaming the Carthaginians for causing the war. This raises a very large question on the part of Polybius. Was he right to assume that it was the actions of Hannibal and the Carthaginians that led to the war, or was there some other underlying events that took place the actually caused the Second Punic War? It is my belief that Polybius assumption was correct in a sense. However it seems that actions of the Roman state played a large part in provoking the war.
18: Rome, the massive Empire consumed the Mediterranean and all of the territories that surrounded it. Rome was not only the foundation of artistic, intellectual, and cultural dominance; it also became the main influential reason of genius in so many of the existing societies of the western world. As always we have to take the good with the bad and take the losses with the gains. What no one knew at the time was that the long lasting dominance that the Roman Empire created would eventually fail. With a loss comes an opportunity for a second chance, for a rebirth of sorts that could only be a dream for other civilizations. With the collapse of one of the greatest empires, opportunities surfaced for new and upcoming societies to take advantage of.
The Second Punic war, beginning in 218 BC, was the second major war between the Roman Empire and the Carthage. Around the same time, the Roman Empire deployed troops to the Northeastern peninsula of Spain to keep reinforcements, from the Carthaginian South, from getting to Hannibal’s armies in Italy to assist them. In A Histor...
...s the collision on Carthage from which Rome emerged ruler of the western Mediterranean. Then there is the third the subjection of the Hellenistic states that gravitated Romans in close contact with the Greek civilization.
In order to determine the extent to which music of the 1960s reflected the main concerns of the period, this essay will focus on, and attempt to elucidate, what is meant by “music of the 1960s”, as well as “the main concerns of the period”; exactly whose concerns they were and the reasons for having them. The essay will attempt to answer the question: “Whose 1960s are we talking about?” In so doing, generalisations and stereotypes will be exposed and examined. Firstly, I have taken the liberty to replace the term “the music”, which may infer exclusivity, suggesting a homogenous style, with “music of the 1960s” as a recognition of a more complex, broader range of musical genres and experiences. In addition to reflecting the main concerns, it will be suggested that, as an agent of social change, songs, and in particular, the lyrics of folk protest songs