Lacks some military knowledge when saying that the key to success was more men than the enemy . Galia could present year after year much more numbers than Romans, maximized at 58,000 men.
@@tonyatutorials6997 I think perhaps logistics and road building and equipment was the biggest reason for the military successes. Tactics yes I think it wouldn't be too far wrong to say the Romans never revolutionised tactics or battle plans or anything like that. They possibly were pulling the exact same tricks as everyone else but were able to drag it out far longer than the enemy in part due to professionalism, better equipment, fighting as a cohesive unit at close quarters and also soldier rotation so that each man doesn't have to fight on the front for more than 15 minutes Would love to hear a bit more on the above but still interesting to listen to Professor Beard as always
I disagree with her point of saying there weren't any tactical genius battles in Roman times. I also disagree with "there were just more blokes" to fight the battles and winning a battle was just as easy as 'going around the back', there were very many aspects and nuances to be accounted for and I think the generals of their time knew very well what they were doing. The incorporation of other peoples, as she mentions, into the military would give it a bigger body- but what's decisive was their 'system' that they implemented to harness these peoples to great effect. It was a ruthless, hard machine that trained ordinary men into very-difficult-to-defeat-in-combat legions. Their enemies had a hard time figuring out how to crack the shell of this system, the Romans were the superior military force of their time through failures and triumphs.
I think she oversimplified that part. Definitely there were tactical and military geniuses in Roman times, both from Rome and from her enemies. But what I think separates Rome and the rest, especially in Republican times, is of Rome's inexhaustible pool of ambitious Patricians, skilled and unskilled. Of course, a huge pool of manpower helps too. I mean, I was watching "How Rome conquered Greece" documentary from Kings and Generals, and I was amazed at how many Roman consuls were involved in methodically conquering Greece piece by piece, fighting king over king. They never relied on one single charismatic king to drive their conquest. If there wasn't any Caesar, they still had Sulla, Pompey, and all the Scipii.
Not sure dismissing the Roman army as pure numbers is a very fair assessment. They didn't have numbers to start with, after all. Discipline, training and a city dedicated to war meant that generals mostly just had to point the army in the right direction. Marching camps made it harder to ambush them and relatively good sanitation prevented some losses from disease on campaigns, which has always been a problem. Numbers count in long wars, but Rome often won with smaller armies than their opponents.
The Empires forces did hit and run as they were rightfully opposed but then that's how short timed lectures and questions and contemporary minds evolve their own view. She's really good during the lecture and you can both agree and disagree with it's content. The emirs and bringers of peace had some democracy and perception of their sway like historians and theology such as unfounded belief. The Gerund was probably the best moment. What has this to do with Tyre is still unclear but in 1AD Greek rivers were more important possibly.
Hadrian had to keep all those Army folks busy and if he'd decided any more territory was not manageable, building a wall was good busy work. You can't just have soldiers sitting around all day doing nothing, and building a wall keeps the natives confused.
So weren't other European powers attempting to do the same? Spain and Portugal earlier on, to France later on? After all Spain and Portugal divided the world, and ruled over much of it for a long time. In India it was not British government but a private company by proxy, that did. The same in Africa, with people like Cecil Rhodes, as agents of Empire for purely personal gain, not for the good of the Empire.
It's funny how she disregards the military conquests of Caesar and Rome, he had to fight more enemies, maintain the morale of the army, supply this army etc. interesting how man and woman focus on different subjects to study, I think she likes to talk more about the people living in the Empire. Lastly, about the genocide, in the ancient world if you don't conquer, you are conquered.
Rome expanded because it gave its conquered (or at least their elites) a real stake in the subsequent success of the Roman state. By the late Imperial period in the West, there were simply too many who wanted to settle in Roman territory and to become Romans through the tried and true method of working for the Roman armed forces (in a first generation as auxiliaries, then coming out later - possibly only a generation or two later- as properly assimilated Roman citizens). The chaotic state of constant internecine civil wars among competing "Caesars" at the time meant there was no real Empire to join (in the West in particular). The warlords just acknowledged reality and started ruling on their own with minimal claims to be the successors to Rome.
The deep root of classical literature understanding is keystone for unearthing what lies beneath the surface of Indian Civil Services battlefield that turns democracy into tyranny when overreach of public servants kills oversight in private life of master of in-house domesticated control via Grey zones of armed conflict and partnering with feudal rivalry between communities and caste or creed coloured culturally contentious issues overshooting politics, legalities and technicalities shadowing double policy schematics, mechanics and dynamics spectrum criminalising professionally distorted historical origins theory of identity thefts at the heart of intellectual property stealing in plain blind spiritual sight.
Her comments about Alexander really reveal what a womanchild she is, no matter how much some people get educated, it doesn't guarantee any maturation. Its insane that so many people look upon her as the leading authority on the Ancient World.
It might be silly, but it is true. Even the most brilliant speaker can miss a stray fact, where she states the British and roman empire did not overlap. It may be obiter, but she said so. I could mention Gibraltar as well. As it was a mandate, it can be argued that Palestine was not part of the British Empire. But Britain itself was.
It's flippant, but it's fundamentally true. Many ancient states had brilliant generals and good tactics, but that isn't enough. Sparta found it out to their chagrin, when, thanks to their chronic isolationism, they eventually simply ran out of people and allies. Rome's military success was always underpinned by their bureaucracy and statecraft.
I agree her attitude and arrogance is off putting but other commenters make a good point in stating that roman diplomacy was key to their military expansion - I take what she says w a grain of salt but do respect her learning if not her exposition
Thank god we have Jake here to let us know that the renowned scholar of Ancient Roman civilisation, professor of Classics at Cambridge University, widely acclaimed winner of many an award, Dame Mary Beard actually 'just talks in circles with no rhyme or reason'. I'm gonna take a shot in the dark here, Jake, and make the assumption that Mary knows a hell of a lot more about lecturing than you do. I'm probably wrong though.
All a bit false her reading it and trying to come across as spontaneous.Just sounds like a ramble after 10-15 minutes,better sitting at home and listening to audio book.
Military wins in the ancient world can be summed up in one phrase: ''Go round the back''. Priceless!
That gave me a right good giggle! Haha!
Clear and lucid, about an issue that has been very puzzling. Loved the "Britain was Rome's Afganistan" comment!
Lacks some military knowledge when saying that the key to success was more men than the enemy . Galia could present year after year much more numbers than Romans, maximized at 58,000 men.
@@tonyatutorials6997 Possibly but the Galians spent much time fighting among themselves didn't they
@@tonyatutorials6997 you also have to be able to point all of them in the same direction
@@tonyatutorials6997 I think perhaps logistics and road building and equipment was the biggest reason for the military successes.
Tactics yes I think it wouldn't be too far wrong to say the Romans never revolutionised tactics or battle plans or anything like that.
They possibly were pulling the exact same tricks as everyone else but were able to drag it out far longer than the enemy in part due to professionalism, better equipment, fighting as a cohesive unit at close quarters and also soldier rotation so that each man doesn't have to fight on the front for more than 15 minutes
Would love to hear a bit more on the above but still interesting to listen to Professor Beard as always
Wonderful to listen Prof. Mary Beard.😍🙏🏾 Regards from lstanbul (or Nova Roma🤭) 😊
I disagree with her point of saying there weren't any tactical genius battles in Roman times. I also disagree with "there were just more blokes" to fight the battles and winning a battle was just as easy as 'going around the back', there were very many aspects and nuances to be accounted for and I think the generals of their time knew very well what they were doing. The incorporation of other peoples, as she mentions, into the military would give it a bigger body- but what's decisive was their 'system' that they implemented to harness these peoples to great effect. It was a ruthless, hard machine that trained ordinary men into very-difficult-to-defeat-in-combat legions. Their enemies had a hard time figuring out how to crack the shell of this system, the Romans were the superior military force of their time through failures and triumphs.
I think she oversimplified that part. Definitely there were tactical and military geniuses in Roman times, both from Rome and from her enemies. But what I think separates Rome and the rest, especially in Republican times, is of Rome's inexhaustible pool of ambitious Patricians, skilled and unskilled. Of course, a huge pool of manpower helps too. I mean, I was watching "How Rome conquered Greece" documentary from Kings and Generals, and I was amazed at how many Roman consuls were involved in methodically conquering Greece piece by piece, fighting king over king. They never relied on one single charismatic king to drive their conquest. If there wasn't any Caesar, they still had Sulla, Pompey, and all the Scipii.
Thank you. Excellent.
Not sure dismissing the Roman army as pure numbers is a very fair assessment. They didn't have numbers to start with, after all. Discipline, training and a city dedicated to war meant that generals mostly just had to point the army in the right direction. Marching camps made it harder to ambush them and relatively good sanitation prevented some losses from disease on campaigns, which has always been a problem. Numbers count in long wars, but Rome often won with smaller armies than their opponents.
Just realised this video was filmed almost exactly one year ago (today being the 29). The world has changed a lot since then ahah.
The Empires forces did hit and run as they were rightfully opposed but then that's how short timed lectures and questions and contemporary minds evolve their own view. She's really good during the lecture and you can both agree and disagree with it's content. The emirs and bringers of peace had some democracy and perception of their sway like historians and theology such as unfounded belief. The Gerund was probably the best moment. What has this to do with Tyre is still unclear but in 1AD Greek rivers were more important possibly.
Many ignorant people such as myself do not think that Ovid and Virigil match up to Sophocles and Homer and how about tossing in Plato and Aristotle
New Zealander - see also the "other" version of Ozymandias from Smith - "In Egypt's sandy silence all alone"
Several Alexander the Great‘s victories didn’t involve going around the back. Issus or granicus.
Hadrian had to keep all those Army folks busy and if he'd decided any more territory was not manageable, building a wall was good busy work. You can't just have soldiers sitting around all day doing nothing, and building a wall keeps the natives confused.
Malta was part of both British and Roman empire...
Wim Pelt indeed! Hello from Malta :)
No time overlap though
And Mary knows the criteria of West Point studies
So weren't other European powers attempting to do the same? Spain and Portugal earlier on, to France later on? After all Spain and Portugal divided the world, and ruled over much of it for a long time. In India it was not British government but a private company by proxy, that did. The same in Africa, with people like Cecil Rhodes, as agents of Empire for purely personal gain, not for the good of the Empire.
this comment section is massively disappointing
It's funny how she disregards the military conquests of Caesar and Rome, he had to fight more enemies, maintain the morale of the army, supply this army etc. interesting how man and woman focus on different subjects to study, I think she likes to talk more about the people living in the Empire. Lastly, about the genocide, in the ancient world if you don't conquer, you are conquered.
Well he hardly did this on his own. He had a staff.
@@SimonOBrien-be8qt add this item to the list: keep the staff loyal to him, the real world is a very tricky place 😉
@@MrSpaceboyy Well it certainly turned out that way for Juilius
Let me cheat and guess...Rome won because it was ruthless.
Rome won because the Roman people were organized and persistent.
Organization. discipline, book-keeping, and salt. 😄
Rome expanded because it gave its conquered (or at least their elites) a real stake in the subsequent success of the Roman state.
By the late Imperial period in the West, there were simply too many who wanted to settle in Roman territory and to become Romans through the tried and true method of working for the Roman armed forces (in a first generation as auxiliaries, then coming out later - possibly only a generation or two later- as properly assimilated Roman citizens).
The chaotic state of constant internecine civil wars among competing "Caesars" at the time meant there was no real Empire to join (in the West in particular). The warlords just acknowledged reality and started ruling on their own with minimal claims to be the successors to Rome.
The deep root of classical literature understanding is keystone for unearthing what lies beneath the surface of Indian Civil Services battlefield that turns democracy into tyranny when overreach of public servants kills oversight in private life of master of in-house domesticated control via Grey zones of armed conflict and partnering with feudal rivalry between communities and caste or creed coloured culturally contentious issues overshooting politics, legalities and technicalities shadowing double policy schematics, mechanics and dynamics spectrum criminalising professionally distorted historical origins theory of identity thefts at the heart of intellectual property stealing in plain blind spiritual sight.
Her comments about Alexander really reveal what a womanchild she is, no matter how much some people get educated, it doesn't guarantee any maturation. Its insane that so many people look upon her as the leading authority on the Ancient World.
Really flippant and silly commentary on ancient warfare and tactics. I’m kind of bewildered.
It might be silly, but it is true. Even the most brilliant speaker can miss a stray fact, where she states the British and roman empire did not overlap. It may be obiter, but she said so. I could mention Gibraltar as well. As it was a mandate, it can be argued that Palestine was not part of the British Empire. But Britain itself was.
Totally agree w Jarrett. Military business is a field in what she doesn't fare well.
It's flippant, but it's fundamentally true. Many ancient states had brilliant generals and good tactics, but that isn't enough. Sparta found it out to their chagrin, when, thanks to their chronic isolationism, they eventually simply ran out of people and allies. Rome's military success was always underpinned by their bureaucracy and statecraft.
I agree her attitude and arrogance is off putting but other commenters make a good point in stating that roman diplomacy was key to their military expansion - I take what she says w a grain of salt but do respect her learning if not her exposition
Well, once you've got your doctorate in history perhaps you'll have the opportunity to debate her!
Time stamps would be great so we can skip the pompous prat and and get straight to Dame Mary
Mary just talks in circles with no rhyme or reason for anything she says.
Thank god we have Jake here to let us know that the renowned scholar of Ancient Roman civilisation, professor of Classics at Cambridge University, widely acclaimed winner of many an award, Dame Mary Beard actually 'just talks in circles with no rhyme or reason'. I'm gonna take a shot in the dark here, Jake, and make the assumption that Mary knows a hell of a lot more about lecturing than you do. I'm probably wrong though.
All a bit false her reading it and trying to come across as spontaneous.Just sounds like a ramble after 10-15 minutes,better sitting at home and listening to audio book.