Why The Germans Lose At War (Book) + JJR @Armageddon & JJ Goes, Returns, and Leaves.

[Blashy]

www.cmmods.com I have not revised it in a long time since I concentrate on the expansion pack at the moment.

There is a readme in the campaign folder that comes with it.

some info here:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=59;t=000380

[JerseyJohn]

Staling's Organist,

I remember when you had interesting points to make instead of being just another nit-picking bore. I wrote something about Trajan as I remembered it, don't mind being corrected but, unless you're in the seventh grade, you don't do it that way. God, I am incredibly impressed with your profound insights.

The point I was trying to make is that Trajan was determined to have his war against Parthia even if he had to create the issue himself. As for there being no evidence that Hadrian poisoned him, that's tough, I've read it a few times and, as I don't possess Trajan's body I guess a forensic test is out of the question.

Anyway, you get a boring gold star.

Here's an account of Trajan's life. As I don't feel like writing a term paper here with every post I think yesterday's decision was the right one after all.

Trajan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Trajan

Emperor of the Roman Empire

Marble statue of Trajan at Colonia

Ulpia Traiana (modern Xanten).

Reign January 28, 98-

August 9, 117

Full name Marcus Ulpius Nerva Traianus

Born September 18, 53

Italica

Died August 9, 117

Selinus

Buried Rome (ashes in foot

of Trajan's Column, now lost.)

Predecessor Nerva

Successor Hadrian

Wife/wives Pompeia Plotina

Issue Hadrian (adoptive)

Dynasty Nervan-Antonine

Father Marcus Ulpius Traianus

Mother Marcia

Roman imperial dynasties

Nervo-Trajanic Dynasty Nerva

Children

Natural - (none)

Adoptive - Trajan

Trajan

Children

Natural - (none)

Adoptive - Hadrian

Hadrian

Children

Natural - (none)

Adoptive - Lucius Aelius

Adoptive - Antoninus Pius

This article is about the Roman Emperor. For other meanings of "Traian", see Traian (disambiguation).

Marcus Ulpius Nerva Traianus, commonly called Trajan (September 18, 53–August 9, 117) was Roman Emperor in 98–117. He was the second of the Five Good Emperors of the Roman Empire. Under his rule, the Empire reached its greatest territorial extent.

Contents [hide]

1 Biography

1.1 Early life and rise to power

1.2 Dacian Wars

1.3 Expansion in the East

1.4 Period of peace

1.5 Maximum extent of the Empire

2 Trajan's legacy

3 See also

4 Notes

5 References and further reading

[edit] Biography

[edit] Early life and rise to power

Trajan was the son of Marcia and Marcus Ulpius Traianus, a prominent senator and general from the famous gens Ulpia. The family had settled in Hispania (the Iberian Peninsula, comprising modern Spain and Portugal), in the province of Hispania Baetica in what is now Andalusia (in modern Spain), a province that was thoroughly Romanized and called southern Hispania. Trajan himself was just one of many well-known Ulpii in a line that continued long after his own death. His elder sister was Ulpia Marciana and his niece was Salonina Matidia.

He was born on September 18, 53, in the city of Italica. As a young man, he rose through the ranks of the Roman army, serving in some of the most contentious parts of the Empire's frontier. In 76–77, Trajan's father was Governor of Syria (Legatus pro praetore Syriae), where Trajan himself remained as Tribunus legionis. Trajan was nominated as Consul and brought Apollodorus of Damascus with him to Rome around 91. Along the Rhine River, he took part in the Emperor Domitian's wars while under Domitian's successor, Nerva, who was unpopular with the army and needed to do something to gain their support. He accomplished this by naming Trajan as his adoptive son and successor in the summer of 97. According to the Augustan History, it was the future Emperor Hadrian who brought word to Trajan of his adoption.[1] When Nerva died on January 27, 98, the highly respected Trajan succeeded without incident.

As issued by the Roman Senate, to the "Optimus Princeps" Trajan.The new emperor was greeted by the people of Rome with great enthusiasm, which he justified by governing well and without the bloodiness that had marked Domitian's reign. He freed many people who had been unjustly imprisoned by Domitian and returned a great deal of private property that Domitian had confiscated; a process begun by Nerva before his death. His popularity was such that the Roman Senate eventually bestowed upon Trajan the honorific of optimus, meaning "the best".

Dio Cassius, sometimes known as Cassius Dio, reports that Trajan drank heavily and was a pederast. "I know, of course, that he was devoted to boys and to wine, but if he had ever committed or endured any base or wicked deed as the result of this, he would have incurred censure; as it was, however, he drank all the wine he wanted, yet remained sober, and in his relation with boys he harmed no one." (Dio Cassius, Epitome of Book LXVIII; 6.4) This sensibility was one that influenced even his governing, leading him to favour the king of Edessa out of appreciation for his handsome son: "On this occasion, however, Abgarus, induced partly by the persuasions of his son Arbandes, who was handsome and in the pride of youth and therefore in favour with Trajan, and partly by his fear of the latter's presence, he met him on the road, made his apologies and obtained pardon, for he had a powerful intercessor in the boy." (ibid. 21.2–3).

[edit] Dacian Wars

Main article: Dacian Wars

Trajan's Column.It was as a military commander that Trajan is best known to history. In 101, he launched a punitive expedition into the kingdom of Dacia, on the northern bank of the Danube River, defeating the Dacian army near Tapae. During the following winter Decebalus launched a counter-attack across the Danube further downstream, but this was repulsed. Trajan's army advanced further into Dacian territory and forced King Decebalus to submit to him a year later, after Trajan took the Dacian capital of Sarmizegethusa. Domitian had campaigned against Dacia from 85 to 89 without securing a decisive outcome, and Decebalus had brazenly flouted the terms of the peace which had been agreed on conclusion of this campaign.

Reconstruction (1977) of the Roman monument for the Victory at the Adamclisi, in present-day RomaniaTrajan now returned to Rome in triumph and was granted the title Dacicus Maximus. The victory was celebrated by the Tropaeum Traiani. Decebalus though, after being left to his own devices, in 105 undertook an invasion against Roman territory by attempting to stir up some of the tribes north of the river against her. Trajan took to the field again and after building with the design of Apollodorus of Damascus his massive bridge over the Danube, he conquered Dacia completely in 106. Sarmizegethusa was destroyed, Decebalus committed suicide, and his severed head was exhibited in Rome on the steps leading up to the Capitol. Trajan built a new city, "Colonia Ulpia Traiana Augusta Dacica Sarmizegethusa", on another site than the previous Dacian Capital, although bearing the same full name, Sarmizegethusa. He resettled Dacia with Romans and annexed it as a province of the Roman Empire. Trajan's Dacian campaigns benefited the Empire's finances through the acquisition of Dacia's gold mines. The victory is celebrated by Trajan's Column.

[edit] Expansion in the East

Coin showing the Forum of Trajan.At about the same time, one of Rome's client kings, the last king of Nabatea, Rabbel II Soter, died. This might have prompted Trajan's annexation of Nabatea, although the reasons for annexation are not known, nor is the exact manner of annexation. Some epigraphic evidence suggests a military operation, with forces from Syria and Egypt. What is clear, however, is that by 107, Roman legions were stationed in the area around Petra and Bostra, as is shown by a papyrus found in Egypt. The Empire gained what became the province of Arabia Petraea (modern southern Jordan and north west Saudi Arabia).

[edit] Period of peace

The next seven years, Trajan ruled as a civilian emperor, to the same acclaim as before. It was during this time that he corresponded with Pliny the Younger on the subject of how to deal with the Christians of Pontus, telling Pliny to leave them alone unless they were openly practicing the religion. He built several new buildings, monuments and roads in Italia and his native Hispania. His magnificent complex in Rome raised to commemorate his victories in Dacia (and largely financed from that campaign's loot)—consisting of a forum, Trajan's Column, and a shopping centre—still stands in Rome today. He was also a prolific builder of triumphal arches, many of which survive, and rebuilder of roads (Via Traiana and Via Traiana Nova).

One notable act of Trajan was the hosting of a three-month gladiatorial festival in the great Colosseum in Rome (the precise date of this festival is unknown). Combining chariot racing, beast fights and close-quarters gladiatorial bloodshed, this gory spectacle reputedly left 11,000 dead (mostly slaves and criminals, not to mention the thousands of ferocious beasts killed alongside them) and attracted a total of five million spectators over the course of the festival.

[edit] Maximum extent of the Empire

Roman Empire in 116, at its maximum extent.In 113, he embarked on his last campaign, provoked by Parthia's decision to put an unacceptable king on the throne of Armenia, a kingdom over which the two great empires had shared hegemony since the time of Nero some fifty years earlier. Trajan marched first on Armenia, deposed the king and annexed it to the Roman Empire. Then he turned south into Parthia itself, taking the cities of Babylon, Seleucia and finally the capital of Ctesiphon in 116. He continued southward to the Persian Gulf, whence he declared Mesopotamia a new province of the Empire and lamented that he was too old to follow in the steps of Alexander the Great.

But he did not stop there. Later in 116, he captured the great city of Susa. He deposed the Parthian king Osroes I and put his own puppet ruler Parthamaspates on the throne. Never again would the Roman Empire advance so far to the east.

Bust of Trajan (Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna)It was at this point that the fortunes of war—and his own health—betrayed Trajan. The fortress city of Hatra, on the Tigris in his rear, continued to hold out against repeated Roman assaults. He was personally present at the siege and it is possible that he suffered a heat stroke while in the blazing heat. The Jews inside the Roman Empire rose up in rebellion once more, as did the people of Mesopotamia. Trajan was forced to withdraw his army in order to put down the revolts. Trajan saw it as simply a temporary setback, but he was destined never to command an army in the field again, turning his Eastern armies over to the high ranking legate and governor of Judaea, Brinius Carnix Maximus.

Late in 116, Trajan grew ill and set out to sail back to Italy. His health declined throughout the spring and summer of 117, and by the time he had reached Selinus in Cilicia which was afterwards called Trajanopolis, he suddenly died from edema on August 9. Some say that he had adopted Hadrian as his successor, but others that it was his wife Pompeia Plotina who hired someone to impersonate him after he had died. Hadrian, upon becoming ruler, returned Mesopotamia to Parthian rule. However, all the other territories conquered by Trajan were retained. Trajan's ashes were laid to rest underneath Trajan's column, the monument commemorating his success.

[edit] Trajan's legacy

Eugène Delacroix. The Justice of Trajan (fragment).For the remainder of the history of the Roman Empire and well into the era of the Byzantine Empire, every new emperor after Trajan was honoured by the Senate with the prayer felicior Augusto, melior Traiano, meaning "may he be luckier than Augustus and better than Trajan".

Unlike many lauded rulers in history, Trajan's reputation has survived undiminished for nearly nineteen centuries. The Christianization of Rome resulted in further embellishment of his legend: it was commonly said in medieval times that Pope Gregory I, through divine intercession, resurrected Trajan from the dead and baptized him into the Christian faith. An account of this features in the Golden Legend. Theologians, such as Thomas Aquinas, discussed Trajan as an example of a virtuous pagan. In the Divine Comedy, Dante, following this legend, sees the spirit of Trajan in the Heaven of Jupiter with other historical and mythological persons noted for their justice. He also features in Piers Plowman. An episode, referred to as the justice of Trajan was reflected in several art works.

[letifer]

Arado: I agree with your conclusion, given the situation you set up, but Willie could have quietly let the Austrians know that they were going to be on their own if they started something, before the July ultimatum. So I maintain that it was still largely Austria and Germany's fault.

I'm also fairly certain that neither France nor England wanted a war. I'm less certain about Russia, but my impression is that the Czar would not have started one because Austria had lost face in a diplomatic showdown. Could be wrong, though.

Harder to say with the Kaiser. Certainly there was an outwardly martial persona; but was it a political stance formulated to gain political popularity or did he really think of himself as a great warlord and itch for glory on the field of battle? Hard to say for certain. The problem with a public posture is that you may find one day that it compels you do things you'd rather not...

[JerseyJohn]

letifer,

My pleasure, glad you're posting now, you can replace me because I've had more than enough of the middle-school mentality that's come to dominate this place; too many instant know-it-alls looking to pat themselves on the head all the time.

I guess another example of a great power looking to force a war on a lesser one came up more recently than Trajan when a certain American president pushed a war in the Middle East on the basis of WMDs that could never be found and a terrorist link that didn't exist.

Of course he might have said that the government in question, with or without WMDs, having invaded two of its neighbors in less than a decade and committed numerous war crimes against civilians, was a menace and needed to be removed, but for reasons known only to him, he didn't.

And with that, I'm off to greener pastures where the maturity level is a little higher than twelve year olds looking to out-do those around them.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Of course he might have said that the government in question, with or without WMDs, having invaded two of its neighbors in less than a decade and committed numerous war crimes against civilians, was a menace and needed to be removed, but for reasons known only to him, he didn't.

The reason is known quite clearly, he was immensely supported by that same invading country when he was committing those war crimes, even being sold materials to produce chemical weapons to do so and he was also supported in his attack on his neighbor.

Can you imagine the country that supported him the most during his most barbaric period now say they want him out for those same reasons???

[jon_j_rambo]

Is letifer actually Sir Jersey?

[Blashy]

Originally posted by letifer:

Thanks for the welcome JerseyJohn. Been lurking for a while ...

I agree with your points - especially with regards to the Romans. Yes, Trajan was looking for an excuse. If you start something with the Romans you had better be able to finish it! Carthegenians found out the hard way.

Actually the 2nd Punic war is a good illustration for this thread - Hannibal was able to invade Italy, beat the Romans silly up and down the penninsula for several years, but still lost. A critical weakness can doom a vastly superior army. In Hannibal's case it was his army's deficiency in siege warefare. He had the run of Italy, but was unable to take any cities.

I guess my point is that everyone makes mistakes in war, usually fairly serious ones, but they are seldom fatal; very often there is some overarching weakness in strategy, tactics or even equipment that turns the tide. So discounting individual German mistakes, is there something such that if the Germans were better they would have won despite their mistakes. For instance, if they had had long range fighters and heavy bombers in quantity would that enabled them to overcome Russia?

I think this is the best approach when we wish to look at history and say "what if" , nit picking at some major errors is not going to get your answer. Like saying if Germany had cut off Dunkirk, Rommel had the proper supply.

In the end there is always ONE underlying cause for the failure of one side and in both WWs it was Germany not having the industrial resources the Allies had. Even if Germany had went into 1944 production in 1940, it would have made no difference in the end result, just the timeline.

We might think it was the lack of not one goal for both wars but in WW1 not ONE country had any idea of a goal... what defeated Germany was lack of resources.

[SeaMonkey]

Come on now JJ, simmer on SO, sometimes "they" don't change his diaper for awhile.......and.... well.... I know I can't remember either,... but those rashes sometimes can be quite irritable "they" remind me.

Most of the time he can be serenely amicable and produce some knowledgeable posts, contributing to the civility of the forum........Oh!!...but when those diapers get in a wad....well....

Picky...picky....picky, ... where's the powder.

[jon_j_rambo]

JJ you okay?

[Guest Mike]

So let me get this right - JJ posts from memory, takes offence at being corrected, goes ad hominem on me , posts a cut & paste from Wiki or somewhere that does nothing to support his original point, and I'm the one who gets a gold star for being a bore?

yeah right.....

JJ for the record I am well aware of Trajan's history, so you need not bore both of us with pointless non-justifications of your position.

[jon_j_rambo]

JJ vs SO

Round #2 please

[arado234]

Blashy we certianly agree on alot especially about world politics(i like your bit about the W.M.D'S)but(and i know ive mentioned this before)what do you think would have happened if the germans in ww2 had a different mindset(they may not have started the war) when attacking(not being a bunch of butchers)and actually got the russians to join their side.Do you think the war would have turned out differently?From what ive read on this subject it was very possible for it to happen.This would have given the germans a massive amount of untapped resources(not to mention manpower) out of range of allied bombers.I dont know if the allies would have wanted to try and attack such a military monster.Also if they had taken a different attitude they wouldnt have lost so many of their nuclear scientists.Just think if that did happen and both sides got ahold of the atom bomb about the same time(YAHOO)One more thing;have you ever tried to build a mod to simulate german production if they had gone flatout right from the start?

[Blashy]

Arado I don't see them getting the Russians on their side in the current context, the reason for the invasion was for land and resources.

If they had not invaded, Russia would not have gone to war and simply kept building its military and who knows what would have occured.

I find there is too much speculation on that part for it to have a possible conclusion of knowing the outcome.

If Russia had stayed totally neutral I still see Germany loosing because of USA massively outproducing them and having the manpower, UK would not have been far behind in matching Germany's production and would have had more manpower because of their CW countries.

Basically anything I look at all avenues I personally only see Germany being able to hold on much longer. In the context Russia would not have joined I could see the Allies agreeing to peace and letting Germany keep the countries they had pre-Barbarossa but this would still mean war in the future as none of those countries would have accepted a foreign power and civil war would break out with USA-UK jumping at the chance to help the rebellion. They were (are) just as greedy for power and any chance to bring down the expanded Germany they would have jumped at it.

As for a mod with full German production in 1940, no I have not done so because if I did I also would have to prime USA's production and UK because when one country builds up intensely the others always follow. So I find it unnecessary.

[Hueristic]

Originally posted by targul:

{snip}

Agnositics and athetist must have a very difficult time dealing with life since they believe this life is it. That would be a horrible thought for me and I piety them. With there feeling that they are here for no reason.

ABeing an agnostic i must correct you. An agnostic is someone who does not know. that is it. They do not believe everything told to them and make thier own decisions. they may go back and forth through life from one end of the spectrum to the other but they generally keep thier minds open and do not allow clouding from any direction.

I personally don't think it is harder for a person to believe there is no soul than a person who believes there is. I have found through my life that those who believe in unprovable entities cause more death and destruction than those who don't.

I will decide whether to believe in something someday if I live long enough.

I hope this clarifies things for you.

Also many people believe that atheists believe in the Devil. Lol that's so funny it's not worth commenting on. But i will anyway. If you believe in any entity you must believe in the others of that pantheon.

[Hueristic]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

Is letifer actually Sir Jersey?

IS Rambo really Kuniworth?

[Blashy]

Originally posted by Hueristic:

Not really, some people might believe the "devil" is the only god type creature and creator of humanity. Heck it almost sounds plausible considering the 100 000s of years humanity has existed and just keeps fighting, oppressing others, etc... I mean the biggest quality that is expressed in humanity is greed!

Well, I don't believe in gods of any kind and religions are fables created by man to help control man and sometimes actually help him be a better person, but always under the guise of those who invented it use it for power.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Hueristic:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

Is letifer actually Sir Jersey?

IS Rambo really Kuniworth? </font>

[Iron Ranger]

If a tree falls in the woods and no one is near, does it really make any noise?

[Bromley]

The miracle of a long wire and a mike can finally put that gem to bed .

[letifer]

Blashy: I think you have to see our earlier support for Saddam in the context of the times; he was in a war with Iran who had made itself our enemy by taking our embassy, holding US citizen hostage, and supporting the groups that killed all those marines in Lebanon. Note we also distanced ourselves from him quickly when it became clear he was a loose canon (gassing the kurds etc). Don't forget we climbed into bed with the Soviets (one of the most evil regimes in human history) during WWII, and the day after the war ended turned around started opposing them. Nobody seems to get very upset about that, and the fact that we were their supporters for a short time does not somehow delegitamize our later opposition. Realpolitik sometimes makes for strange and unpleasant bed-fellows. And in fact, with the end of the USSR, the US dropped pretty much all those unsavory tools it had been employing to resist the Soviet expansion.

[Blashy]

Saddam was a madman and killer of innocents since day one and USA knew that and they did not need to send this nut job chemical ingredients that he "swore" he was going to use for fertilizer when US Intelligence was adamant he was not going to do so or weapons.

USA distanced themselves from Iraq when he stopped taking orders, if he had not stopped he would still be there and USA would support him as long as the oil kept flowing, no matter how oppressed the Iraqi people would be. Just look at Saudi Arabia.

This was not WW2 where you had one side that wanted to control the world and impose their views. The Soviets were not the instigator and they are the ones that fought 75+% of the German army. Still, I have always agreed with the military commanders that wanted to take on the soviets right after Germany surrendered, they knew Russia was not going to leave the countries it had "liberated" from Germany. But the politicians just gave up on all those countries because well... Western Europe has always thought of Eastern Europe as lower class, not as much today but it still exists.

As for Iran... deposing a democratically elected Government and imposing your "ideal" leader is not going to make you friends with that country. But USA has done that pretty much all over Latin America, so that was nothing new.

[Guest Mike]

Quite frankly I think the Soviets did less damage in 45 years occupying Eastern Europe than WW3 would have done in 1946!

[Blashy]

I don't think so. USA (so was UK a little) was a huge supplier of soviet hardware if they went to war and cut them off they would not have had the long term supply. Were it not for US convoys Russia would not have survived against Germany.

And all those Eastern European that spent more than half their lives under an oppressive regime might have a different feeling about being liberated by the West in 1-2 years or wait 45 years. That's my opinion.

As I said, Western Europe had no interest in Eastern Europe they historically have considered them lower class, this goes back as far as the Roman Republic.

[letifer]

Blashy: it was part of an epic struggle that was as sweeping (if not as 'hot') as WWII. Iran was a client state of the USSR; Saddam was the US's client. I have no wish to defend Saddam; certainly the US knew he was a strongman dictator when it was supporting him; but he was not at that point someone who had committed genocide. However it was already quite clear before the US started supporting the USSR that it was run by genocidal goons. I do not blame the US for that; it was a strategic decision and sound - though thoroughly unpleasant. As part of the cold-war chess game, the decision to support Saddam was of a similar vein. And with the end of the cold, I maintain that the US ditched its ugly client states because they were no longer needed -- in the same way that the Soviet's services were no longer needed after WWII.

As to our charges of meddling in Iran's politics - again, it was part of the cold war; just as the CIA 'helped' turn the post war elections in Italy away from the Communists, it feared the way things were going in Iran. I'm not saying it was necessarily sound policy - only that our actions during the cold war were not really different from the realpolitik of WWII.

US foreign policy has been primarily driven by concern over perceived threats; it is essentially reactive. In the 19th century it was worried about European meddling and expansion in the territories bordering it in North America and reacted accordingly. Later, it came to see the world fascist movement as threat and acted accordingly in WWII. After the war Communism's agressive expansion was the concern and we know the results. The 90s were basically worry-free and the US closed up bases around the world and cut its military. Now, the US sees a militant Islam on the march and it once again finds itself struggling to contain an expansionist threat.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as if you conceive as the US as a sort of imperial power; certainly many people seem to have this view, but I've tried to show that the US foreign policy only becomes agressive when it feels as if some kind of expansionist totalistarian movmement is thrusting itself on the world: Fascism, Communism, Islamism. If some place like Sweden or Japan wants to collectivize itself the US will not care. It might shake its head and chuckle over the poor benighted foreigners, but nothing more. However it WILL care if Sweden starts agressively (and successfully) exporting their folly to other countries via political and military intrigue.

In short, I'd argue that the US is not a nicer version of the USSR, Fascist Italy/Germany, or our Islamist friends. It is fundamentally different and not imperialist.

[ July 21, 2007, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: letifer ]

[Guest Mike]

What was islamist about Saddam Hussain again? This is hte guy who fought hte Ayatollah, and banned AQ......