Understanding Warfare and Empire Building in the Classical World

In the modern age, it is very hard for us to understand the empires of the classical age, as technology and ethics have changed drastically. For instance, the empire of Rome. How did it come to be? Why was it so successful? Accomplished historians have asked these questions for many years and come up with many complicated answers. But, a good way to experience and learn about this is through ancient warfare simulators- one that I have used and enjoyed being Rome: Total War. In this article, I will discuss what Rome: Total War has taught me, and how that relates to the ancient world. 

Firstly, Rome: Total War has opened my eyes to economic difficulty in the ancient world. This is because the economy basically consisted of trade (though not nearly as extensive as today), farming, mining, and other creation or production within the country in question itself. The key point here is that countries created a large portion, usually most of their economy, through internal production, meaning that the larger and more populated they became, the greater their income would be. But to uphold a working and efficient economy, you needed a large armed force, and preferably, a professional armed force. A good example of an efficient and professional army backed up by an efficient economy is the Roman Republic. The reason why the Roman Republic could not stop expanding is because victories were needed in order to secure their population happiness, stop any external threats to trade, and to expand internal economic capabilities. As a result of this, Roman politics became inextricably linked with Roman warfare, meaning that many aspiring politicians needed to go a-conquering in order to cement their place within the Republic itself, and, to fund their next campaign, they also needed a stronger economic base. This is a theme that is true within all ancient societies, though most were not as successful as Rome. 

Another takeaway from Rome: Total War is that you have to play towards a strategic goal or objective. On a large scale, this should include the economy, the risk factor, the safety of civilians, the professionalism of the army in question, and a recognition of the bigger picture. On a smaller scale, say battle by battle, you again have to consider the risk factor, the terrain, the necessity, troop numbers, the quality and style of both your troops and the enemies - only then can you make a final decision about the tactics you will use unless you decide (if possible) to retreat. For me, this is what distinguished the good generals and military systems from the bad. They could see the bigger picture, they had knowledge about other aspects of war, they knew the end goal and they adapted their strategy to that. An example of this is Gaius Julius Caesar. The goal of his campaign into Rome was to take over Italy and Sicily, so he concentrated all his forces there and won out. However, he later adapted his end goal to winning the other half of the Roman Empire and maintaining the other half through many smaller campaigns. If you have an end goal, then you know what is vital to enable you to reach it. Therefore, you can clearly see what is most crucial to your effort, and enforce the necessary to achieve it. Caesar eventually succeeded due to his strategy and the way he always kept his end goal in sight during his campaigns. 

But, you might be asking, why do these countries battle each other in the first place? As I mentioned earlier, there is an important economic aspect, but that is not the only reason. There was a safety aspect as well. As George Washinton stated; “offensive operations, oftentimes, is the surest, if not the only (in some cases) means of defence." If you are attacking someone, then they cannot attack you back, unless, along the way, you err. For instance, Carthage: with Rome threatening its trade routes and its settlements in Sicily, Carthage decided to attack Rome first. This was risky as they were both rising powers, but Carthage decided to do it anyway as they believed that Rome would otherwise attack them. This attempt failed. No nations in the classical age ever felt truly felt safe, so, therefore, had to build up armed forces. But when their economy couldn’t sustain them any longer, they would be forced to attack, though, admittedly, sometimes countries did just attack others to build up their power base, which leads to the creation of empires. You also have to take into account personal ambition. There are many leaders in the ancient world that invaded other countries because they wanted glory, riches, to be popular amongst the people, and to put their name down in history. Many of them succeeded in being granted everlasting fame and have gone down in history as either tyrants or heroes, depending on who you ask.

There are many other aspects of warfare and economy in the ancient world, many that are based upon the circumstance and many not. There is much left unsaid, and I hope to write about it in later articles. History is there to be learned from and understanding logistical struggles in the classical age help us analyse and learn from their failures and successes, so that we may implement them in the modern-day much more efficiently. This is what I learned from playing Rome: Total War.