Interview: The Roman Republic at War with Dr. Bret Devereaux 

This is possibly the greatest explanation of this topic I've ever heard. I've read some articles by Dr Devereaux before and he's just as good here. It's rare to get something (especially on youtube) that covers thematic, rather than chronological, history let alone that does it this well. A near perfect combination of high level overview, specific details, and sources, and avoids getting lost in the weeds. Thanks to both interviewer and interviewee for this. I've always had the notion in my mind that there was a spectrum of statehood in antiquity: those with access to large resources but could only mobilise a small fraction of them (like the Achaemenids), and those with small resources but able to draw upon almost all of it (like individual Greek poleis). Understanding how the Roman republic could break the mould and have the best of both worlds is fascinating.

Top notch analysis. I recently “discovered” Dr. Devereaux. He is now my favorite ancient historian. Look up his other interviews, you won’t be disappointed.

- ...what a fascinating and interesting podcast.... thank you ...

Interesting note on the archeology. I suspect the peak of prosperity was a good deal earlier than we normally think. The Augustan period rather than the Antonine.

Great interview

That was really good.

Good interview

I finally understand how Rome Zerg rushed the Mediterranean after the Punic Wars. Thank you both

I'm becoming a fan :)

Good, interesting talk. Shame about the near constant ads interrupting it.

Well worth the listen. Lots of good points.very though provoking. Thanks

Like commented and subscribed 👍

The only thing i didn't agree with in this episode is the part about the Pilum. They would have been more expensive to produce than a lighter /simpler throwing spear like a javelin and require significantly more iron, and as you say in the episode there's an enormous amount of logistics to produce even one kg of iron. Pilum were extremely effective, but not remotely effective enough to justify the ruinous cost if they were, indeed, single use weapons (or required repairs after every use). Not to mention the fact that even if every legionary carried 2 and used at least one in each engagement, an army in the 10s of thousands would need literally dozens of wagons carrying nothing but spare Pilum to make it through more than a handful of engagements. Even if a wagon could carry 1000 of them, that's already 5 wagons for one legion to use them in one engagement. It simply wouldn't be justifiable from an economic, logistical, or practical sense to waste so much on a single use weapon. As for whether Pilum were designed to break or bend on impact, there's not much beyond anecdotal evidence for it. They certainly COULD break or bend, but we know pretty well what the thickness and properties of the iron was through the minor design changes over the years, and recreations using extremely similar metals have shown that they are surprisingly strong, and easily survive repeated throws at armor, trees, the ground etc. It's possible that they might have experimented with changing one of the pegs holding it together to an easily breakable wooden peg that would make the shaft dangle uselessly after impact (making it impossible to immediately throw back). Even if this wasn't the case, the Pilum was still difficult to get out of a shield, and EXTREMELY difficult to get out with the shield still in your hand, more difficult still if you were in battle formation or moving, and basically impossible to get out before the now charging Roman legionaries close the 20 or less meter distance they threw from. The Pilum didn't need to bend or break because the front few rows that were hit by them were going to have time or space to try and get it out before they were smashed into by the charge. Even if they did actually bend, you wouldn't need a blacksmith to bend it back, you could just bend it back over your knee. If the force of a one handed throw is enough to bend something, then using 2 hands to bend it back is more than enough. Sure the iron will be slightly more brittle after that, but it won't need actual repairs until it finally snaps. In short, i agree with almost everything else here, but the idea that Pilum were designed to be unusable after one throw is an outdated idea that came about from a handful of accounts that mention them getting bent from people who likely never saw combat, and if I recall correctly, they just say that it's a thing that CAN happen to Pilum, not that they always do it or are even meant to. Then historians took those couple mentions and started claiming that they were intentionally designed to bend.

For the algorithm!

Excellent commentary on an interesting subject. But I would question the notion that pila were hard to fix; unless the rivets attaching the head to the shaft broke which would require tools to repair, the soft iron head is easy to straighten by hand. Likewise they would only be lost if the army were required to quit the field of battle.

Excellent and very interesting exposition, thanks to both.

Although distributed command did decline during & following the 3rd Century, it stayed/made a comeback at points when the empire was divided and only the eastern provinces remained. Those structures of command would continue to evolve for the remaining life of the Roman state, even into the 15th Century.

I love this interview. It explains not only how Rome was able to summon such massive forces but also how the Hellenistic armies worked.

Why is the Roman republic at war with Dr Brett Devereaux. What did he do to deserve this? I love punctuation errors. 😅😅😅😅 or in this case totally ignoring the need. 😊

Alot of the political stuff in this episode we can definitely see happening right now here in the u.s.a.

You carry 4 javelins, not 2, and only 2 are meant to be used as classic javelins.

Did anyone catch the name of the book he mentioned?

9:48/16:00 - 20:00 In relation to Rome's manpower efficiency: I wonder if ultimately this is not really about cultural structure, and the difference between a unitary state and a state that is effectively an empire ruled by a foreign elite. In the case of Rome, whatever that word exactly means to you, I think that by and large the Romans saw themselves as a unified culture, if not maybe even an _ethnos,_ - even when accounting for the internal struggles that occur in any society like those between the patricians and the plebs, or the more intensive "cousin conflict" like the Samnite Wars - a kind of shared destiny. whatever the state was engaged in was a shared enterprise and, more or less, all elements of society were going to benefit, or lose from it. Sure people still needed to be paid, and had self-interest, but ultimately it was a lubricant and not the primary motivator; the primary motivator was, as alien as it might seem to us today, quite literally the glory (and wealth) of Rome. There was something familial about it, in the sense that if you try and get your family to do some chores around the house rather than hiring a whole bunch of professionals to do it it's going to cost you a lot less, that alleviated some of the conflicts and increased stability, because people genuinely had an interest, even in a darwinian sense, of sacrificing for the cause, and you didn't need the constant threat of state power to make everything function. The Hellenistic kingdoms were the exact opposite, where you effectively had foreigners rolling over people who had almost nothing to do with them, and hundreds if not thousands of years of genetic and cultural distance between them. they were, in a sense, "bandits in residence", and so money or the threat of violence had to propel almost everything since there was no inborn loyalty, and far from the population in general wanted to sacrifice from the cause they may be looking to get ruled of their rulers at a profitable opportunity. So in a very real sense, the actual strength of Republican Rome comes from this kind of shared metaphysical core, which allows its massive manpower efficiencies. I think you could also make the case that by the end of the Republic and the beginning of the Imperial Age Rome had changed so much in terms of ethnic and cultural content and modality, and had acquired such a massive wealth disparity, that this kind of thing was not possible and for functional purposes made as well have been considered a different civilization, since it would be forced to adopt many more of the internal hegemonic control mechanisms that the Hellenistic kingdoms used.

Rome Oligarcs were the protectors of other Cities Oligarcs AGAINST their own POPULARES. Roman Army was more and more a professionnels army made of small farmers then by proletarians. What happened with Capoua, and what made Capoua one of the first allied cities of Rome ?When there were "social revolutions" ongoing in an allied city, Roman soldiers would step in and deal with the threat in favor of the rulling class... because they could pay for Roman protection. Capoua was in a social / slave revolt turmoil. So Capouan Oligarcs opened the Gates to the Roman consular army. And... allies were striped from their land in case of rebellion. That became roman "ager publicus". So who's land would be confiscated first ? The small farmers land or... the ruler class farms ? And who's gonna benefit after from the "ager publicus" ? Roman Oligarcs... so small farmers allies were steared into the allied contingents of the Roman Army. Rome was the allied super power protecting Cities from their warlike neige neighbours but also protecting the rulling class against the social unrest.

I wish Alexander had Rome's capable and loyal generals/consuls to watch his back and keep the empire united.

"Promo SM"