Rome and the Punic Wars, success or failure?

Question

To what extent could it be argued that the Punic, whilst a military victory, were an unmitigated disaster for Roman society in the 2nd centuary BCE?

Answer 1

The 2nd punic war left the lands of Italy largely in ruins. The Romans as well as allied Italians had lost much. This allowed the growth of the massive estates to grow unabted. There was a decline then in the amount of people able to serve in the miulitary among other things and this caused the eventual crisis that resulted when the Gracchi sought to restore lands to many improverished Romans.

Militarily they were a success for Rome. But the social and political results were grave.

Answer 2

The Punic Wars were a disaster for Rome because it forced the Roman Senate to commit many legions to the far reaches of the then Roman empire and, consequently, allowed the lesser military threats of the northern Germanic tribes to make gradual superiority of language and cultural within the Italian homeland.

Answer 3

I think that you mean the 3rd century BC, as the 2nd century BC would have been the 3rd Punic War, in which Carthage was destroyed. The 2nd Punic War was certainly full of disasters, but unmitigated is far too strong a word, in my opinion.

Answer 4

The Punic Wars, and the territory acquired by the Roman Republic as a result, required the legions to be on campaign & garrison constantly. During early to middle republican times, only landowners were permitted to serve in the legions. With the campaigns & garrisons taking more men away from their farms, production suffered and led to the growth of large estates, owned by the wealthy and worked by slaves, rather than the family farms of previous generations. Consequently, the pool of eligible recruits for the legions was steadily reduced until Gaius Marius began to recruit from among the landless urban poor.

This shift in the composition of the legions meant that each man was no longer required to provide his own arms and armor, but was equipped with these as well as paid by the state (or more realistically, by his commanding officer). The new legionnaire's increased reliance on his commanding general as well as his low stake in the future of the republic led to his loyalty being to the person rather than the republic. Once Sulla took advantage of this to march on Rome the first time, in an vain attempt to preserve the republic, he signed its death warrant. Of course Sulla retired from the dictatorship, but Caesar and his successors did not.

Answer 5

ammianus is correct about the clash in Sicily over the mamertines, but he left out some important details. The fight over the small, but important city of Messana caused the war. Whoever controlled Messana also had control of the Straight of Messana. This waterway was important because it was one of two maritime routes around Sicily. This worried Carthage, because not only could Rome cut off that route if they controlled Messana, but their presence on Sicily was a threat to the second maritime route. Carthage believed that it was an absolute necessity for them to hold onto a city called Lilybaeum on the far Western end of Sicily, in order to control the other maritime route around Sicily (in between Sicily and North Africa). That route was Carthage's lifeline; being a commercial maritime power, if that route were cut off it would effectively castrate Carthage from its trade and source of power. That is why they interpreted Rome's involvement in Sicilian affairs as an act of aggression.They considered Messana to be in their sphere of influence and were not about to tolerate anybody else interfering in their sphere. Ammianus is correct about Lex Hortensia.

Answer 6

I don't believe you can make that argument. Rome went on to achieve much greatness after wards. Sure, it had growing pains. But to me that would seem to equate the American Revolution as a failure because of the Civil War.