Humanitext Reader

Livy · History of Rome §9.19.1-9.19.17

Comparison of Military Strength: Rome and Alexander

Passage 457 of 1770 · Latin

Summary

Livy concretely compares the military strength of Rome and Alexander in terms of population, troop quality, weaponry, tactical flexibility, and logistics, asserting Roman superiority. He further hypothesizes that if Alexander had invaded Italy, he would have been defeated by a combined Roman and Carthaginian effort.

§9.19.1restat, ut copiae copiis conparentur vel numero vel militum genere vel multitudine auxiliorum.
It remains for forces to be compared with forces, either in number or in the kind of soldiers, or in the multitude of auxiliaries.
censebantur eius aetatis lustris ducena quinquagena milia capitum.
In the lustra of that age, two hundred and fifty thousand heads were rated.
§9.19.2itaque in omni defectione sociorum Latini nominis urbano prope dilectu decem scribebantur legiones; §9.19.3quaterni quinique exercitus saepe per eos annos in Etruria, in Umbria Gallis hostibus adiunctis, in Samnio, in Lucanis gerebant bellum.
Therefore, in every defection of the allies of the Latin name, ten legions were written down, almost by an urban levy; four or five armies often waged war during those years in Etruria, in Umbria with the Gallic enemies added, in Samnium, and among the Lucanians.
§9.19.4Latium deinde omne cum Sabinis et Volscis et Aequis et omni Campania et parte Umbriae Etruriaeque et Picentibus et Marsis Paelignisque ac Vestinis atque Apulis adiuncta omni ora Graecorum inferi maris a Bruttiis Neapolim et Cumas et inde Antio atque Ostiis tenus aut socios validos Romanis aut fractos bello invenisset hostes.
Then all Latium, with the Sabines, Volscians, Aequians, all Campania, part of Umbria and Etruria, the Picentes, Marsians, Paelignians, Vestinians, and Apulians, with the addition of the entire coast of the Greeks on the lower sea from the Bruttians to Naples and Cumae, and thence as far as Antium and Ostia, would have found either powerful allies for the Romans or enemies broken by war.
§9.19.5ipse traiecisset mare cum veteranis Macedonibus, non plus triginta milibus hominum et quattuor milibus equitum, maxime Thessalorum; hoc enim roboris erat.
He himself would have crossed the sea with veteran Macedonians, not more than thirty thousand men and four thousand cavalry, chiefly Thessalians; for this was his strength.
Persas, Indos aliasque si adiunxisset gentes, inpedimentum maius quam auxilium traheret.
If he had added the Persians, Indians, and other nations, he would have dragged a hindrance greater than an aid.
adde, §9.19.6quod Romanis ad manum domi supplementum esset, Alexandro, quod postea Hannibali accidit, alieno in agro bellanti exercitus consenuisset.
Add to this, that while the Romans had reinforcement at hand at home, for Alexander, as happened afterwards to Hannibal, his army would have grown old waging war in a foreign land.
§9.19.7arma clupeus sarisaeque illis; Romano scutum, maius corpori tegumentum, et pilum, haud paulo quam hasta vehementius ictu missuque telum.
Their weapons were the round shield and the sarisae; for the Roman, the scutum, a greater protection for the body, and the pilum, a weapon of much more violent force in strike and throw than the spear.
§9.19.8statarius uterque miles, ordines servans; sed illa phalanx inmobilis et unius generis, Romana acies distinctior, ex pluribus partibus constans, facilis partienti, quacumque opus esset, facilis iungenti.
Both were stationary soldiers, keeping their ranks; but that phalanx was immobile and of a single kind, while the Roman line was more distinct, consisting of several parts, easy for one dividing, wherever there was need, and easy for one joining.
§9.19.9iam in opere quis par Romano miles, quis ad tolerandum laborem melior? uno proelio victus Alexander bello victus esset: Romanum, quem Caudium, quem Cannae non fregerunt, quae fregisset acies?
Now in work, what soldier is equal to the Roman, who is better at enduring labor? Alexander, defeated in a single battle, would have been defeated in the war; what battle line would have broken the Roman, whom Caudium, whom Cannae did not break?
§9.19.10ne ille saepe, etiam si prima prospere evenissent, Persas et Indos et inbellem Asiam quaesisset et cum feminis sibi bellum fuisse dixisset, §9.19.11quod Epiri regem Alexandrum, mortifero vulnere ictum, dixisse ferunt, sortem bellorum in Asia gestorum ab hoc ipso iuvene cum sua conferentem.
Indeed, even if the first events had turned out prosperously, he would often have missed the Persians, the Indians, and unwarlike Asia, and would have said that his war had been with women, which they say Alexander, king of Epirus, when struck by a fatal wound, said, comparing the lot of the wars waged in Asia by this very young man with his own.
§9.19.12equidem cum per annos quattuor et viginti primo Punico bello classibus certatum cum Poenis recordor, vix aetatem Alexandri suffecturam fuisse reor ad unum bellum; §9.19.13et forsitan, cum et foederibus vetustis iuncta res Punica Romanae esset et timor par adversus communem hostem duas potentissimas armis virisque urbis armaret, simul Punico Romanoque obrutus bello esset.
Indeed, when I recall that for twenty-four years in the First Punic War it was fought with fleets against the Carthaginians, I think that the lifetime of Alexander would have been scarcely sufficient for this one war; and perhaps, since the Carthaginian state was joined to the Roman by ancient treaties, and an equal fear against a common enemy would have armed two cities most powerful in arms and men, he would have been overwhelmed by the Punic and Roman war at the same time.
§9.19.14non quidem Alexandro duce nec integris Macedonum rebus, sed experti tamen sunt Romani Macedonem hostem adversus Antiochum, Philippum, Persen non modo cum clade ulla, sed ne cum periculo quidem suo.
Not indeed under the leadership of Alexander, nor while the affairs of the Macedonians were unimpaired, but yet the Romans experienced the Macedonian enemy against Antiochus, Philip, and Perses, not only without any disaster, but not even with danger to themselves.
§9.19.15absit invidia verbo et civilia bella sileant: nunquam ab equite hoste numquam a pedite, numquam aperta acie, numquam aequis, utique numquam nostris locis laboravimus; equitem sagittas, §9.19.16saltus inpeditos avia commeatibus loca gravis armis miles timere potest: §9.19.17mille acies graviores quam Macedonum atque Alexandri avertit avertetque, modo sit perpetuus huius, qua vivimus, pacis amor et civilis cura concordiae.
May ill-will be absent from my words, and let civil wars be silent: never have we been hard pressed by enemy cavalry, never by infantry, never in an open battle line, never in equal, and certainly never in our own places; the cavalry, the arrows, and the blocked passes, and places out of the way for supplies, a soldier heavy with arms may fear: but a thousand battle lines more formidable than those of the Macedonians and of Alexander has Rome turned away and will turn away, provided only that there be a perpetual love of this peace in which we live, and a civic care for concord.

Notes

  1. 9.19.4invenisset — Subjunctive pluperfect. The omitted subject is Alexander, who has been the focus of discussion since the previous chapter. The long list of regions and peoples from Latium to the Greek coast functions as the object of invenisset, describing what Alexander would have encountered (either as strong allies of Rome or as enemies already broken by Roman arms) in a contrary-to-fact scenario.
  2. 9.19.5traheret — Subjunctive imperfect. This is the apodosis to the condition 'if he had added...' (si adiunxisset, subjunctive pluperfect). The imperfect is used instead of the pluperfect to represent a continuing state or the ongoing consequence that would have resulted in the past.
  3. 9.19.10ne ille — The word ne here is not the negative adverb but the affirmative particle meaning 'indeed' or 'truly'. It is placed immediately before a personal pronoun (here ille) to add strong emphasis to the assertion.
  4. 9.19.15absit invidia verbo — An idiomatic expression using absit (present subjunctive third-person singular of absum, expressing a wish). Literally 'may envy/ill-will be absent from the word', it is an apotropaic formula used to avert the jealousy of the gods (nemesis) when making a boastful or confident statement.
  5. 9.19.15equitem sagittas — The phrases equitem sagittas at the end of section 15 and saltus inpeditos avia commeatibus loca in section 16 are all coordinated as direct objects of the main verb timere potest in section 16. This structure lists the specific hazards (cavalry, arrows, blocked passes, trackless places) that a heavy-armed soldier (miles) might fear.

Cite this passage

Livy, History of Rome §9.19.1-9.19.17. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi0914.phi001.humanitext-lat2:9.19.1-9.19.17

Please note the AI-draft status of the translation and the date accessed.

Translation, notes and summary are AI-generated drafts, revised through reader feedback.