Jump to content

What Ifs? of SC


Liam

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 184
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well said JJ, you aways seem to amaze me with your grasp of history. Rome was amazing and strong with a great shipping and road system. But it crumbled from the top, and the Senate became a joke!

As you know not all were Roman citizens, but only the ones borne to it in Rome itself, bought it, or bonre in Colony Cities like Phillippi in Greece or Tarsus in Asia Minor; until Constantine made all part of Rome, but not the Rome that you think of under the eariler Caesars. I have one book on Rome that said under Constantine the Roman legions increasted to 75 (900,000 men).

Still a small number to control such a large empire. During the Civil war, the most intresting period of their history and one I hope will be made into a war game, Rome has like you say only around 25 legions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SeaWolf,

Thanks for the Good Word and I don't mind saying I've learned quite a bit from your postings as well.

Interesting direction we're going in.

As you know the Romans had a large number of civil wars lasting thruout their history. By the time Julius Ceasar came along they already had one (between Marius and Sulla), Ceasar would win supremacy with another civil war against Pompeii the Great (his son-in-law!), his death would result in third between Octavian plus Mark Antony against the Senate, and there would soon afterwards be a fourth between the victors, Antony and Cleopatra vs Octavian. Things would calm down with the reigns of Augustus (Octavian) and his immediate successors.

The civil wars would begin again with the death of Nero, followed by a lull and more civil wars afterwards. Arguably the Romans fought each other more than they fought anyone else!

Constantine was part of an Imperial threesome. Combined their armies probably did match the figure you cite. After Hadrian they began adapting a system of local militia manning the defenses with a core of hardened, well equiped veterans moving around the empire as needed.

By the reign of the philosopher emperor Marcus Auerelius, who spent most of his time attending to border wars while his son Comudus (a very maligned historical figure, though doublessly a bit loony) attended to most of the every day functions of empire.

After Aurelius a buffer zone of semi-Romanized independant peoples had settled along the Empire's Balkan and German boundaries. The Empire found it was more economical to pay them to stay in one place and protect it (indirectly defending the empire itself) rather than migrate, causing trouble with other barbarians and involving Rome in constant border fighting.

This had two undesirable results. First, because the buffer people were doing all the fighting and using Roman weapons and techniques, they eclipsed the Roman army as skilled soldiers. Add to that the fact they far outnumbered the garrisons to their south and it's obvious to see the Romans had created a poor system for themselves.

Around 400 A. D. a mass migration began out of central Asia. This is sometimes mistakenly compared with the later Mongul drives, but this first push by the Huns, unlike the Monguls, was unorganized and truly a migration of tribes. As they moved west the buffer semi-Roman tribes decided it was easier and more rewarding to simply cross the borders and settle in the empire itself than protect it from outside. So you had the Huns displacing the Ukrainian steppe people, who displaced the buffer tribes, who invaded the Romans.

The only true Asian invader was Atilla, who led an extremely large and well organized mixed group of Barbarians in battles against both the Romans and their most recent invaders banding together abainst the common foe. Atilla's horde was actually a roving business based on acquiring plunder. It sounds rediculous, like some Mel Brooks satire, but that's exactly what it was. After a bloodbath at Chalons France, he hit Northern Italy, got as far as Rome and was bought off by Pope Leo who spread the word that they'd been delivered by a miracle. Yes, a miracle they had so much gold to offer!

Because the late Romans and Byzantines used this system of militias and regulars accounts of battles vary widely depending on who the historian was counting as a soldier. The armies seem to have been immense up till Chalons, which was a mutual slaughter.

Afterwards there weren't as many people and by 525 A. D. the armies seem have become much smaller than they had been in earlier centuries. The decline in population began with a defastating series of plagues begining during the reign of Aurellius and continueing through the Dark Ages.

It's reported that there was less sunlight and crops became harder to grow and fed fewer people, leading to some starvation and fewer births. It's believed today that this was caused by a large asteroid strike about the time of Chalons (it's effects are also recorded as far away as China) resulting in a dirtying of the atmosphere that seems to have had effects for several decades. More likely it was a combination of all these things and no doubt many regional plantings and harvests were ruined by invasions and the redirecting of local farmers to militia duty. What a mess!

Constantine fits in perfectly with what you were saying earlier about Christianity. He established it as an institution of the Empire, had a dream involving a cross that he said guided him to victory (over a rival Roman) but his real motive was probably to harness the productive power of all those closet Christians to his own cause. He built Christian churches and Pagan Temples in equal numbers and often right beside each other and waited till his death to be baptized, probably figuring it was a good idea to cover all bases as he crossed that great river and tipped the Ferryman. smile.gif

I wish there were some way to tie this back in with SC, but I'm afraid this thread has irretrievably crossed it's Rubicon!

Hopefully the next person posting here will throw in a few words like Stuka and antitank gun so we can become legitimate again. :D

[ January 15, 2003, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice report JersyJohn. But do not forget that the recent law system of the most European countries based on the ancient Roman law system. the current system of countries and nations is 2000 yes old, based on the old system of tribes. Germany is still based on the old frontiers which where defended by ancient German triebes against the Roman invaders. Some of the German cities based on foundings of the Romans like Trier and Cologne both 2000 year old cities.

In most of the other European countries this is very similar.

Sven

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sven

Agreed entirely and glad you rounded the issue out. We see those border areas today as having been areas of conflict, but I think that's wrong.

I believe the Germans who lived astride the Roman frontiers were in a very lucrative position. No doubt they served as the middlemen prospering from the import export commerce and lived much better than they would have either inside the empire or farther back from it. Naturally, when it became a matter of either moving within it's boundaries or staying outside and fighting the new hungry arrivals they sought the safest path, invasion of the softened Romans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed entirely and glad you rounded the issue out. We see those border areas today as having been areas of conflict, but I think that's wrong.
Yes of course this is wrong. I totally agree. France and Germany were foes for a few hundered years. But 800 a.c. a king ruled both countries. His name was Karl the Great. His capital city was Aachen a 2000 year old German city.

Later on the German emporers thought they were the heir of the Roman empire. The last emporer of Germany lead Germany into WW1 which caused WW2. I think he forgot the history.

I believe the Germans who lived astride the Roman frontiers were in a very lucrative position. No doubt they served as the middlemen prospering from the import export commerce and lived much better than they would have either inside the empire or farther back from it. Naturally, when it became a matter of either moving within it's boundaries or staying outside and fighting the new hungry arrivals they sought the safest path, invasion of the softened Romans.
The German tribes were the first who beat a Roman army. They weren't as primitive as the Romn generals thought. Ab big mistake. I think a similar mistake which was made by Adolf Hitler, a small stupid Austrian idiot.

Sven

[ January 15, 2003, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: Sven1969 ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Roman Empire did evolve, I wonder if they spread themselves too thin though rather than they accepted they come to the very End of Earth<of any value to them!>After Germania who really could destroy them? 10k German soldiers would go out and battle the Romans, 200 would come back and sleep with 10 thousand wives<1 night>, and in 18 years you'd have another Army to fight. You can't beat that, long term.

I believe that the Highlight of Roman Power was there initial Expansion, that is what most interests me. Noone could beat the Armies of Rome in her Hayday turn of the Millenium. A vast empire will fall, it's a given...internal corruption wasn't all of it<perhaps it was inbreeding?> Many contributing factors and the rise of other Great Civilizations. When Byzantium came I don't even believe that to be a true part of the Eastern Roman Empire, more like an Eastern Break-Away and I was never impressed with their accomplishments. Basically being raped by their new Western Brothers of relics, and wealth and then destroyed by Turks.

Despite their cruelty, all Civilization is founded on an Iron Fist. The Hebrews did many atrocities of their own, in their God's name.

More people have probably died in the name of of Western God's than of any other form of unnatural death...<as you stated in your insane comments fanatical Christians in Asia Minor> Maybe Tibet is a gentle nation and India under Ghandi, etc... I don't know of many to be honest over the years.

I liked how Alexander the Great Never stopped, stretched all the way to India. As an individual far exceeded the Roman accomplishments militarily. Temujin Khan may even more so for Middle Ages and actual size.

Modern Times and the United States is relying on her technology and her good will to get her along. Her people become lazy and divided and she will have troubles. She requires to stay up to date with the rest of the world. Industrious, scientific and a Supreme Military<used correctly>... Regardless of what anyone says about us and our McDonald's. Our Lattas. Our Glorified 8 cylinder cars. Our Hair replacement surgery. We are Wealthy! We have the most intelligent people, considering our size. We're the only Western nation I know that begins teaching their children 3-d Combat training as young as 3>>playstation<< We also have our own form of modern slavery. Minimum Wage tongue.gif

We may last a few more centuries yet. Just gotta get those Asians on DVDs, fast food, busch beer, and Marlboro ciggerates!!!

oh and High definition color TVs with Surround sound. Then they don't have to go to a public execution they have it without leaving home

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JJ:

I find your history lesson accurate as to the displacement of the people of Europe during the Fall of Rome and the beginning of the Middle Ages. Ostrogoths, Vandals, Huns sacking my capitol! I wouldn't be playing a Fiddle, I would be at the Walls of Rome. I heard they were impervious to any ballista or siege of the time?

Took us a thousand years of Chaos to recover but doesn't mean that a legionaire could battle a Knight. We still progressed but in different ways. Chinese & Norsemen visiting the Americas, makes you wonder what would have happened if the locals would've picked up metallurgy from their visitors! Also some sort of immunity to Eurasian Diseases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liam

You pretty much had the same thought I was having about the native Americans. If they'd been exposed gradually over the course of many centuries to European and Asian merchants they might have developed immunities and not been so disease ravaged and practically wiped out before the real immigration actually began. World history would certainly have been more interesting. As you mention, long before the 16th century the Atlantic was frequented by Norsemen and the Pacific by Chinese explorers and traders. With a slight variation of events Cortez might have been greeted by Aztecs armed with muskets!

Here too, there were old prophesies in the Aztec religion about bearded white men, paving the way for the Spanish wo walk in as Gods. But who were the bearded white men in their prophesies? Phoenicians? Celts? There are a lot of missing pages in world history.

The Romans didn't so much overextend themselves as become depopulated by plagues. The mass movement of nomadic bands from Asia into Eastern Europe coincided with a period of decline the Romans were going through. It's possible they might have recovered and become strong again had it not been for the massive invasions.

The Byzantines are an odd case. In their own way they were also pretty significant acting as a butress against Islam for so many centuries. Their rold as Rome's surviving half is probably not quite accurate; even before the dissolution of the Western Empire the Byzantines were following a separate path. The Eastern Mediteranean had always followed a Greek culture even during the centuries of Roman rule. The Byzantines were not Roman but Greek almost from the start. They never had an opportunity to expand, their entire existence was based upon survival.

Alexander and Genghis Khann were indisputably the greatest conquerors in history.

Beyond conquering older civilizations Alexander failed establish a lasting civilization of his own, failing even to name a successor. He left his generals squabbling over the spoils. Perhaps he died too young to make provisions for death.

Genghis did a little better in this respect, though it was vast empire was also divided after his death and within a few centuries it's component parts were assimulated by the very people they'd conquered. The longest lasting being the Golden Horde in Russia, but the dying parts had little in common with the original driving force of it's creator.

[ January 16, 2003, 08:30 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As originally posted by JerseyJohn:

... the dying parts had little in common with the original driving force of it's creator.

Sounds like the epitaph for almost all established churches, and/or less significant cults. These well-meaning experiments in earthly Utopia, are based almost exclusively on the charisma and spirit of the original founder, yes?

[... the principle reason why the Germans had so much success was... SHOCK!... whether it was the eerily keening Stukas or the hard practised elan of the panzer commanders and fierce grenadiers, the whole world huddled... was shocked! not merely the WWI-era French doctrinaires... ]

BTW JJ, are you a Savant?

I have read a lot of History (... this was even one-half of my dual major in college) and I have the devil's own time trying to keep up with your comprehensive posts on... well, EVERYTHING!

As for the Roman Empire... without it, you would NOT have the Catholic Church. The one became the other.

Now, many have supposed that was a bad thing. Or, anyway, the principle reason for all those horrible wars of the 17th-20th centuries.

But I see it a little differently. My idea is that WITHOUT the ameliorating influence of the church, you would have had even more destructive and Self-aggrandizing activities.

Recall that no-one even signed their names to art works until the time of the Dutch masters, such as Breughel the Elder. Before then it was always "Anonymous" who created inspired Art.

Philosphy was Religion and religion philosophy until roughly the time of the Renaissance. The trust-structure was rent by empirical Science (... which, when you think about it, is little more than a FAITH-based cult) and the compelling need for rationales to justify a new age of commercial and industrial "progress."

I am suggesting that we are now dutifully trudging a narrowly proscribed path (... Technology as god and savior) that is purely ARBITRARY.

It exists, along with mostly selfish motivations, only because the humans will not, apparently, DREAM or IMAGINE anything better or more sublime. By this I mean... more, ah... enlightened and righteous (this word intended with non-specific meaning).

We could tame the Unconscious/Demons/Ancient Spirit if we would only dare to. This is dangerous (RE: Nietzsche's remark that to contend with "Monsters" invites the possiblity that you will become a monster yourself... :eek: ) and might very well lead to personal annihilation. This hasn't deterred the genuine seekers such as Buddha or Christ or Lao Tzu... but, for whatever reasons, there are fewer and fewer and fewer risk-takers these days. Where the penalty for failure is... death.

However, as with cinema auteurs and celebrities and philosophers and science pioneers, it seems we are too easily seduced by false prophets and almighty obeisance to Icons... and Mammon most especially.

Too bad, but very evident, at least to me. Well, we have to make do with what we have, no matter how paltry or uninspired. smile.gif

[ January 16, 2003, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: Immer Etwas ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Liam

You pretty much had the same thought I was having about the native Americans. If they'd been exposed gradually over the course of many centuries to European and Asian merchants they might have developed immunities

Like I've stated before i'm really no historian but it is my belief that the Natives u speak of the Aztecs? The ones the spanish conquered with 200 conquistadors? They were wiped out from one disease i believe Small Pox it wasn't a flurry of various ones it was one huge epidemic. And basically dureing this time when a Huge percentage of the population was dieing the spanish rode into the capitol with words of peace rideing on animals that frightened the natives killed the Leadership and conquered a nation in one fell swoop.

But even now look at the fear our own government has of Small Pox. It is vacinating the military and is formulating a program to vacinate all americans even though it is estimated that 65000 people nationwide will die from the vacination alone. This is not a disease you Grow a resistance to without a major epidemic. If i remeber what little history i know the europeen population was wiped out like 5 times from epidemics. The last being the Bubonic. I'm sure all my facts here are not completely straight and i would love for someone to fix any errors as my memory is pretty ****ty smile.gif

[ January 16, 2003, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: Hueristic ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

The Romans didn't so much overextend themselves as become depopulated by plagues. The mass movement of nomadic bands from Asia into Eastern Europe coincided with a period of decline the Romans were going through. It's possible they might have recovered and become strong again had it not been for the massive invasions.

Lmao after i commented on your first paragragh i read this one and thought damn i just wasted my time on that last reply.

tongue.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Alexander and Genghis Khann were indisputably the greatest conquerors in history.

There was that persion emporer with the first million man army what the hell was his name? Never could take Sparta (20,000) Spartans held against him. read a great book on it i think it was called Titan. But i agree BTW alexander is my namesake smile.gif

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Beyond conquering older civilizations Alexander failed establish a lasting civilization of his own, failing even to name a successor. He left his generals squabbling over the spoils. Perhaps he died too young to make provisions for death.

He named a successor. Qoute "The Strongest one"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Immer Etwas:

Hmm U don't mean the crusades do u? that was like the 9th to the 12th centuries. It is my belief that even though the church called for these Attacks on the Heathon populations(Muslems) the real reason for them were all the extra "royalty" hanging around that according to law could not work and therefore were a burden on the Lords to support them. Once the population of all these landless knights got too high to support it was popped into the poes ear that now would be a great time to teach the heathons a lesson(go sack Jeruselum). therby creating more lands for the victorious to rule and culling the population. A two pronged approach at a population problem that truley had nothing to do with religion at all.

Or did u mean the inquisitions? I don't know crap about those but did a quick search and came up with some dates.

1231: Gregory IX begins Medieval Inquisition

1478: Sixtus IV authorizes the Spanish Inquisition

1542:Bernardino Ochino flees Italy, converts to Protestantism, Paul III establishes the Roman Inquisition, Limited press censorship, banning of Ochino's works.

Wow had to edit this in....

1834: Spanish Inquisition officially ends.

Damn that's a long time!

So now that we got freedom of religion WHEN the Hell you Guys think we can get "freedom FROM religion"?

Man i'm looking this crap up I gotta be really bored now Lol. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Immer

I unintentionally made the Church sound entirely bad and that's a misconception. You have a great point about what Dark Age Europe would have been without it. By the turn of the eleventh century A. D. I think it began declining as a positive force. The first step was probably in santioning the Crusades; organizing wars was directly contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ! The next step was organizing the Inquisitions, which were justified by statements of Apostles taken out of context. Christ never condoned killing under any circumstances, something the later church leadership chose to ignore.

Agreed entirely with your observation of the inevitable course ideas, institutions and governments seem to go through: initial rise, stability, inertia and decline. The more sound the basis the longer the process takes, but inevitably it always happens if not sooner than later. The least stable premise of all is conquest for conquest sake, of course. And we have more than enough examples great and small of what that leads to.

Thanks for the savant inquiry; everyone seems to be talented at something, if this is my area I'd be willing to trade it for some wealth producing skill. :D [not really]

Hueristic

Cortez arrived in Mexico at exactly the right moment. The High Priests mistook the Spanish for prophecy fullfilling Gods and simultaneously a number of very large vassal states rose up against their very oppressive rulers. Though Cortez only had a handful of soldiers, as you mention (200), tens of thousands of American Indians joined his army. Additionally he possessed a few primitive cannon and the Aztecs were terrified of his fighting dogs and even of the horses, which were creatures they had never imagined. Some depictions indicate many American Indians thought horse and rider to be a single creature. After the initial shock his conquest of their Empire was very hardfaught, though much of that fighting was done on behalf of the Spaniards by American Natives.

It wasn't till after the Spanish conquest that both friendly and hostile American natives began dying by the million of European diseases.

I think you're talking about Cyrus the Great who established the Persian Empire. Like the later Romans, they were masters of incorporating all the subject peoples into the overall structure of the whole. His descendants, Darius I and Xerxes I attempted to expand into Greece. Neither understood the numerous problems they'd have first on the battlefield, where their weapons and tactics didn't suit rough terrain, and secondly in the Greek will to be independant of Asian rule.

The original Persian Empire didn't last very long. If Alexander hadn't succeded in conquering them they might have been very long lived because, despite the usual internal rebellions all vast empires are privy to, the Persians were exceptionally good rulers.

Appropriately, throughout the milenia Persians and various other Middle Eastern societies have remembered Alexander not as a great conquerer but as an horrific despoiler.

You're right about his legacy, he's reported to have said he was leaving everything "to the strongest." How he came to that idea after being personally educated by Aristotle is a mystery to me.

While initally conquering the Persians he appeared to be forging a lasting Euro-Asian dynasty. For his time he appears to have been a good, if sometimes arbitrarily cruel, administrator. Perhaps if he'd survived the return from India his empire might have become a lasting one.

Rome and Carthage were already coming of age in the Central Mediteranean. Adding Alexander's great realm into the mix would have changed things considerably. One thing is certain, they wouldn't have been boring centuries, not that they were in any case.

[ January 16, 2003, 10:42 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to forget that the Aztecs were hated and the Spanish used other Indian Allies to conquor them. Zatecas, etc... You fire a cannon and muskeet, can you imagine the fear it would derive in those primitive peoples? Even if the Aztecs mustered 10 thousand men, no match for a Modern European Army... With it's flanks covered by friends gladly willing to see the evil Aztecs go down and of course the Aztecs probably had worthless leadership. Sacrifice 50 thousand people and God will save you! tongue.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liam

I don't remember much about the actual campaigns in Mexico but you describe it accurately enough, the Spaniards in the center flanked by native allies. The Aztec leadership was probably very good but powerless to alter the inevitable. Aside from having firearms the Spanish also had superior armor and sword weapons. As you say a few cannon blasts would have had enormous psychological impact. If the Aztec line faltered it would have been sufficient to allow the Spanish Allies, who were also fierce warriors, to attack with greater effect.

I do recall the Spanish greatly admired the fighting ability of the Aztecs and did not take them lightly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ahem oh man this topic has mutated beyond all recognition hehe.

I'll try to tie all this into SC somehow :rolleyes:

Heuristic - I believe Xerxes was claimed to have a million man army but those are Greek sources...I think he had no more than 250,000 people in his army which a lot were probably camp followers and other non-combatants.

JerseyJohn - well can't let you say the name Ghenghis Khan without me say something about him as I happened to be his great great great great great great grandson smile.gif

J/K

But Ghenghis Khan almost nearly destroyed Islam. He came very close in occupying Baghdad and parts of the middle east. Talk about what repercussions that would have had today.

Guess my grandaddy just got too soft in his old age smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oops I forgot to tie all this into SC.

But well maybe the next SC editor will allow ancient style warfare on a strategic level like Ancient Europa (like the WWII Europa board game series except starting with Alexander the Great and ending with the Roman Empire)

[ January 17, 2003, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: Genghis ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, this is one of the most wild rides this forum has gone thru! Xerxes, not Cyrus. His Grandson Arta-Xerxes was killed by Alexander. Alexanders Greek culture influenced his empire for well, until now, but greek was the cultural language even in the Roman empire. The New Testiment was written in greek because most people at that time in the roman empire could read and speak greek - all because of little Alexander.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...