What Is Meant By The Punic And Gothic Wars?

1099 Words3 Pages

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

Open Document