The Old Roman World [pp. 751-757]

The Old Romain World.
And yet Rome not only conquered
and incorporated independent races,
but glued them to the centre Rome;
so much so, that they lost animosity,
language, institutions, and nationality to become Romans. Rome not
only romanized Italy, but italianized
the then known world. In the days
of Hadrian and Trajan, the waves of
the Mediterranean knew no lord but
the Roman; from the margin of
those seas were wafted the wealth
and the produce of the world toward
Rome; and far beyond that margin,
through hundreds of miles, the genius
and power of Rome were transforming the nations, building roads and
palaces, founding cities,. subdividing
provinces, spreading the Latin language, and stamping the mind of
Latium on the human race. From
the Padus to Japugium the names of
the Italian tribes were merged into
the name of Rome. The men of
Mesraim bowed before the Roman
eagle, and saw the traditions of two
thousand years vanish away before
the institutions of Rome. The Asiatic cities renounced their pride of
birth, and Greece yielded up a rich
heritage of literary and military glory. The fiery valor of the Gauls
and the martial memories of western
nations were surmounted by the unconquerable energy of the Roman
mind. To Rome the known nations
of the world became as handmaids,
and paid homage through a dozen
generations. Whatever had been
great in the world, whatever powerful, whatever beautiful, whatever renowned, whatever ennobling, was
swallowed up in the mighty name of
Rome. And when, amid the upheaving of humanity and the undulations
of races, Rome sank as a ship in a
troubled ocean, her spirit lived to
elevate the Italian, the Frank, the
Spaniard, the Norman, to be the
princes of the families of mankind.
Could military mechanism have ac complished such results? Could
military mechanism, when it was no
more, possess a renovating influence? Does not Sallust assert the
superiority of the Gauls to the Romans in war? Besides, it is a questionable point whether the military
systems of the Greeks are not preferable to the war tactics of the Romans. The Thessalian cavalry, and
the Macedonian phalanx with its
adaptability to evolutions, can stand
a strict critical comparison with the
Roman equites and Roman legion.
The variety of movements in the
phalanx, despite its inflexible and
inseparable character, may well compensate for the individual and displayed energy of the Roman combination. That Polybius judges the mechanism of the Roman superior to
that of the Greek, may be ascribable
to the fact that he preferred attributing the subjugation of his countrymen,
not to a superiority of valor, but of
military manceuvres. Does any one
suppose that the army of Pompey,
twice as numerous as that of Casar,
was worsted through the defect of
theoretic military mechanism, rather
than through the deficiency of the
qualities which make a soldier? If
any one will take the trouble of writing, in parallel columns, the organization, the sub-organizations, the war
habiliments, the aggressive and de
fensive weapons, the laws of army
management in sieges, in march, in
battle, and in the tent, as they existed
in Italy and Greece, we would leave
to his candid judgment the decision
on the speculative excellence of Grecian and Roman war.systems, considered as a whole. And on the sea,
the Romans were tyros when the
Greeks had attained considerable
perfection. The Romans defeated
the Carthaginians, not on a system
indigenously reared on the waters of
752