|
Keep in mind that the opponents Rome was fighting in Western Europe, with the possible exception of the Carthaginians, don't really compare at all to the Parthians or Sassanians that they sparred with in the East. There's a huge difference in fighting divided tribes, and fighting another centralized state. The Alexandrian successor states don't really count, since they all but wiped each other out until Rome coincidentally showed up and mopped them up. It really is true that the barbarian tribes on the Western frontier never really posed a military threat to the Roman empire, right up until Rome-in-the-West no longer existed.
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 18:33
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:29 |
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Keep in mind that the opponents Rome was fighting in Western Europe, with the possible exception of the Carthaginians, don't really compare at all to the Parthians or Sassanians that they sparred with in the East. There's a huge difference in fighting divided tribes, and fighting another centralized state. The Alexandrian successor states don't really count, since they all but wiped each other out until Rome coincidentally showed up and mopped them up. ??? They posed a helluva threat to the Republic, and shut down the western half of the empire in the end...
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 19:47
|
|
|
Yeah the germanic tribes, gauls, britons, and Iberian tribes all kicked the poo poo out of Roman forces at various times.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:It really is true that the barbarian tribes on the Western frontier never really posed a military threat to the Roman empire, right up until Rome-in-the-West no longer existed. ...Teutoburg Forest?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 22:34
|
|
|
Bitter Mushroom posted:??? They posed a helluva threat to the Republic, and shut down the western half of the empire in the end... No, not really. What killed Rome in the west was factional infighting within Roman politics and the gradual erosion of Roman claim to sole authority. The majority of the barbarian tribes we think about in the post-Roman west were invited in to fight other Romans in the first place, and then largely just consolidated power amongst themselves. It would be absolutely incorrect to say that invading tribes from across the Rhine conquered Rome-in-the-West. Even after they were starting to get established, a relatively small Roman army with mediocre leadership managed to completely destroy both the Vandal state in North Africa and the Ostrogothic state in Italy. The subsequent loss of these areas happened when Roman forces were withdrawn to fight The Real Wars in the east. euphronius posted:Yeah the germanic tribes, gauls, britons, and Iberian tribes all kicked the poo poo out of Roman forces at various times. DarkCrawler posted:...Teutoburg Forest? Occasionally they did. Tuetoburg and Carrhae are pretty similar affairs really. But none of these tribes would have ever been able to put up a sustained resistance as did Rome's opponents in the East. They could perhaps destroy an army, but they never posed a systematic threat to Roman territory. I also very deliberately included the word 'empire' in there. Certainly Teutoburg counts, but most of the losses to barbarians occurred before the reform of the Roman army into what we imagine today, towards the close of the Republican period.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:...Teutoburg Forest? To follow up on what PittTheElder said about threats to Rome, after they beat Carthage, they didn't face a single enemy other than the Parthians who was in an actual position to take and hold serious amounts of territory until the Goths migrated in force into Roman territory. An individual tribe or group could make life very difficult at various points in the frontier, but they didn't pose an existential threat to Rome.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 23:05
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:And after they lost those legions, they sent a bunch more up there and kicked the Germans around, got their eagles back, then promptly withdrew back to the Rhine. The Germanic tribes that fought at the Teutoburg Forest were not in any position to march on Rome and claim it in the same way that the Goths would later do, as the only reason that the Goths were moving in such numbers was because they were being driven out by the Huns. Also, they didn't invade so much as be invited in then take over. I mean, until they kicked the door in and put Rome under siege, looted a buncha cities, those sorts of things.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 23:44
|
|
|
Which particular 'barbarians' do you mean? Because it's certainly not as clear cut as that.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 01:05
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:To follow up on what PittTheElder said about threats to Rome, after they beat Carthage, they didn't face a single enemy other than the Parthians who was in an actual position to take and hold serious amounts of territory until the Goths migrated in force into Roman territory. An individual tribe or group could make life very difficult at various points in the frontier, but they didn't pose an existential threat to Rome. Yeah, this is what he meant and he's right. There weren't any states in the west that could pose a threat to Rome the way that eastern kingdoms could. They could cause trouble, and obviously later the balance of power shifted, but from the defeat of Carthage to say, the 300s AD there was no one in the west that could threaten to do more to Rome than just deliver a large defeat or a raid or something.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 01:07
|
|
|
the JJ posted:I mean, until they kicked the door in and put Rome under siege, looted a buncha cities, those sorts of things.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 01:53
|
|
|
Yes, different groups. Teutoburg was a defeat but it was an ambush and betrayal. The Romans came back a few years later and exacted terrible revenge, killing unbelievable numbers of Germans in a massive campaign of destruction across Germany as retaliation. The German forces were annihilated this go around, without the advantages Arminius supplied. The tribes who show up in late antiquity are different peoples than the ones being fought against at this time. E: No disrespect to the Germans. They were very smart. They knew defeating the legions in open combat was unlikely, so they lured them in and destroyed them in piecemeal ambushes, using their advantages and neutralizing Rome's own advantages. Brilliantly done tactically. But when the Romans showed up and forced the Germans to fight on Roman terms, the Germans got obliterated. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 02:07 on May 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 02:04
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:I'm not an expert, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the tribes that decisively defeated the Romans at the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest were not the same tribes that marched down out of the Alps and sacked Rome. The Goths, at the time of the battle, were much further to the east and not involved as far as I'm aware (if they were even across from Sweden). I was under the impression that the tribes that fought at Teutoburg Forest mostly migrated west in the decades after the battle and eventually wound up settling in what is now France and Spain, not marching to Italy with the Goths. Yeah, GF already covered it, but it's worth stating that the Romans also had something of a terrible record when it comes to identifying peoples. The names they used were recycled, and applied to groups who could have been absolutely different from the people who were there before, just because they occupied the same general area a hundred or more years earlier. We can't really say for sure whether that's accurate since all the evidence is long gone, but it seems, implausible.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 05:45
|
|
|
Maybe this is playing,"What if...?" too much and isn't really possible to answer, but would Caesar have had better luck against the Parthians? I think most would agree he was a better strategist/planner/General than Crassus or Mark Antony but how well was his campaign planned? I know he intended the Parthians to be just step one in an all-encompassing campaign to basically put down all perceived threats to the Empire (or should I say Republic?), but was he making the same mistake as others of just assuming he could show up with Roman legions and pretty much win by default? If he hadn't been assassinated, how likely is it that he would have secured a victory over the Parthians (or negotiate a strong treaty with them/get Crassus' standards back)?
Jerusalem fucked around with this message at 03:09 on Jun 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 03:05
|
|
|
He might've been victorious, but fact is the Romans were seriously victorious over the Parthians several times and it never got rid of them. I doubt Caesar would've been able to put them down for good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 03:56
|
|
|
That's a great question. Upon first thought, I would have said Caesar would have been on relatively equal footing at having a good run against Parthia. I mean even he admitted he was just an unusually lucky general. But a bit of further reflection, and I start to think maybe not, maybe he would have actually had the upper hand. We're talking about a Caesar not fighting for money or to save his neck/dignity amongst and with political rivals, but a man unchallenged and in complete control of a particularly sharply honed military without the senate or rivals to stop him (I'm basing this conjecture just on the premise that the Cassius/Brutus plot was given the ol'  for whatever reason).He might just have kicked some butts, and in him doing so, you'd have to speculate what Octavian does if Uncle Gary isn't stabbed to death in public and goes on to win some more tributes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 04:13
|
|
|
I think Caesar was just being modest. You don't win like that without skill. The Battle of Alesia was completely insane and I don't know how many generals could've ever not only conceived of doing that, but thought it was a good enough idea to actually do, and then win.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 04:16
|
|
|
What an incredibly complicated point of "what if" history this is. Almost all of western history hinges on Augustus driving home the birth of the empire at THAT particular point. There's literally no way of coming to understand the empire without him taking the reins precisely and exactly the way he did. To have Caesar live longer, challenge the Parthians and, win or lose, go from there would almost necessarily redefine Europe as we know it. He may very well have won OR lost and then staggered on as another Sulla or some such while Octavian pisses about as a governor, and Antony either stays in tow or eventually tries to make his own run while the senate continues to play oligarchy-hardball for who knows how long. I really don't want to get all Turtledove or whatever, but jimminy crickets if that doesn't highlight just how freaking important this period in history is. edit to add: I always felt like Alesia wasn't Caesar's highpoint, even though I recognize that it really helped define him as a high level commander. He once again gets lucky and basically outlasts his opponents, albeit in a ludicrous way that garners respect. Not that it isn't impressive. It's just exhibit number 42 in Caesar's "welp that worked I guess" museum. He's just so loving close to losing, AGAIN, and get's yet another fateful roll of the dice. I get where you're coming from with the idea that "Hey, he got lucky so many times he HAS to be good!" argument, but man, I sure don't buy it sometimes. I see that there. fucked around with this message at 05:09 on Jun 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 04:51
|
|
|
Was it really luck though? He got Vercingetorix into a position that seemed strong but was neutralized by Roman engineering, then there was the oh poo poo moment of the relief force, and again engineering allowed them to hold off two numerically superior enemies, completely surrounded, and then defeat them. Ludicrous way is exactly right and that's why I like the battle, who the hell does that and wins? Also, I think the accounts are skewed to make him look luckier. Modesty was a Roman virtue, even with all the parading and showing off. It also suggests that he has the favor of the gods, since they keep intervening to make him win against impossible odds. I think the truth is that he was good at what he did, and he might've gotten lucky sometimes too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 05:18
|
|
|
If roman engineering was what won the day (and it probably did), there's little to suggest it was Caesar that was the lynchpin. Another general could (hypothetically) have utilized it the same way, it just happened to be him that used it. That is only to say that I don't know that he himself had developed the ideas and tactics used here, just that he was in position to do so. It may very well have been his ideas that won the day, I don't honestly know. I also am not sure that 'modesty' had much to say with Mr. "I killed a billion gauls on Tuesday and finished it up by killing a billion more on Friday when I caught up with their neighbors". He was, definitely, good at what he did, when he could. I don't know, again, how modesty comes into play when he was trying so goddamn hard to portray himself constantly as a roman superman. I see that there. fucked around with this message at 05:38 on Jun 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 05:36
|
|
|
Roman style modesty. I conquered Gaul because the gods and the people of Rome wanted me to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 05:40
|
|
|
"Oh, no, my dear Cato, it was a mere 75,000 gauls that my army subdued that day." as a form of modesty does not make him a superior general or less reliant on luck to beat the 20,000 irregulars he actually faced or whatever. That said, frankly you're much more well-versed than I, and I'd much rather read your synopsis than argue what-ifs. I just often think it seems Caesar gets painted with this great military strategist brush when that doesn't always seem to fit his MO
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 06:00
|
|
|
His reputation is definitely exaggerated because he's Caesar, but all evidence is he was a brilliant general. I mean, ignore all the writing and just look at what happened. Gaul had resisted Rome for ages and Caesar rolls up the entire place in a decade. He knew what he was doing. But Hannibal would've walked all up and down his rear end without breaking a sweat. If you asked me for a list of the ten best generals ever or something, I'd consider Caesar for it but I'd have to think about it and I don't know if he'd make the list. Alexander, Hannibal, and Subutai are the ones I'd put on there immediately, others I'd have to think about. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Jun 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 06:04
|
|
|
Gonna bust balls here just because.Grand Fromage posted:His reputation is definitely exaggerated because he's Pompey, but all evidence is he was a brilliant general. I mean, ignore all the writing and just look at what happened. Pirates had resisted Rome for ages and Pompey rolls up the entire Mediterranean in a couple years. He knew what he was doing. But Hannibal would've walked all up and down his rear end without breaking a sweat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 06:19
|
|
|
Yeah? Pompey was one hell of a commander too. Poor Crassus, always the bridesmaid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 06:20
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Yeah? Pompey was one hell of a commander too. Poor Crassus, always the bridesmaid. My point was that Caesar and Pompey are always made out to be these indestructible military figures of supreme confidence and genius like we'd been talking about. But their exploits are nearly indistinguishable in that light. edit to say that it behooves Roman culture at the turn of the republic to empire that both of them were identically the best generals of all time and both of them kicked rear end forever, but Caesar won and all, and that edges him out slightly if you're keeping score, but really, they both kicked rear end, we assure you. I see that there. fucked around with this message at 06:45 on Jun 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 06:28
|
|
|
I see that there. posted:If roman engineering was what won the day (and it probably did), there's little to suggest it was Caesar that was the lynchpin. Wasn't one of the big things with Caesar the fact that his men loved him/respected him/were so in awe of him that he could push them to do things faster than anybody had any right to expect? Maybe another General would have ordered the construction of a wall around Alesia (though I can't imagine many would have ordered a SECOND wall be built around his own army  ) but would anyone else have been able to push his men so hard to finish it as quickly as they did (and still maintain their devoted loyalty)? Not to mention the idea of telling 6000 of your exhausted, battle-weary men to sneak out and attack a fresh force of Gauls 10 times your size. Others might have ordered it, but again I can't imagine many who would have had their orders followed, or that would have retained their men's loyalty and love afterwards.Grand Fromage posted:Poor Crassus, always the bridesmaid. Poor Crassus indeed, he was so rich that even 2000+ years later he's still in the top ten richest men of all time and yet he wasn't happy because he didn't get his Triumph. Jerusalem fucked around with this message at 13:14 on Jun 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 09:54
|
|
|
Thank you for appreciating my dumb joke.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 15:43
|
|
|
What's the weirdest fringe theory you've heard about Roman culture/history? Were the dodecahedrons components in an ancient ley-line telecom network? Were the Christograms on the late Empire's standards made from pieces of the True Cross? How many Emperors were lizard-people?  v: Oh lord, I wish. Big Cheese and some other posters here have studied Classical history pretty extensively, and with extensive study comes exposure to cranks of all stripes. I was doing some research on the Cathars once and stumbled upon a book that consisted of apologia for neo-Albigensianism, which the author had reconstructed via psychic crystals or something--they're just an obscure, minor sect that died out pretty quick. The Roman Empire and the ancient Mediterranean in general occupies a central position in Western society's view of itself. Seems like it's fertile ground for crazies. Grand Prize Winner fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Jun 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 16:03
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:What's the weirdest fringe theory you've heard about Roman culture/history? Were the dodecahedrons components in an ancient ley-line telecom network? Were the Christograms on the late Empire's standards made from pieces of the True Cross? How many Emperors were lizard-people? You seem to know some of these. Explain!
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 16:27
|
|
|
Why did Ceasar ever seek/accept the appointment of dictator for life? Ego just got a hold of him? I mean one doesn't need to be shrewd at politics to think to themselves 'Hm, this might be overreaching."
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
Well personal protection, there was precedent from Sulla, he maybe thought the whole process was corrupt ( it was), save the people from more civil war, and that he was the best man for the job (he was). The annual two consul wasn't going to work anymore and hadn't worked for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
Oh I know. I don't mean why he took the power, I just mean doing something that overt in terms of concentrated power vs keeping a Republican guise up by say constantly having his dictatorship renewed or just having the powers of various offices granted to him without holding the actual position of dictator in perpetuity.
Amused to Death fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Jun 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 17:31
|
|
|
He should have gone farther and murdered most of the Senate. Oh well, Augustus figures that out later.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
euphronius posted:He should have gone farther and murdered most of the Senate. Oh well, Augustus figures that out later. It's kind of a sad lesson but that seems like the way to go if you're ever a dictator. Stalin died an old man too
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
Well the rule of law and tradition had broken down with changing economics and imperial pressures (the Republic was already an empire way before Augustus). The oligarchial system devised in the provincial Latin period dominated by class conflict and local threats was not going to work in Caesar's time. But you still had this old guard of Latin and local senators mucking everything up to the detriment of stability and peace. They had to go one way or the other. I guess Caesar thought he could work with them through the force of his personality but Brutus showed that the old, rich class was really beyond saving. So I wouldn't say killing off the corrupt oligarchs is necessary for every dictator, but it was in this case. But I really can't blame Caesar for not thinking big enough because he was hewing close to Sulla and it wasn't really until Caesars murder by oligarchs and ANOTHER generation of civil war till it became really clear that there was nothing of the republic worth saving. euphronius fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Jun 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
I was browsing youtube the other day and found a couple videos showing an "ordinary" day in Rome during the 1st century AD. Both are from the perspective of adolescents: the first a 17-year-old boy, and the second four sisters ranging from ages five to 15. A Glimpse of Teenage Life in Ancient Rome Four Sisters in Ancient Rome I was looking for some videos to show my 7th-grade geography class. These unfortunately aren't appropriate for the kids I teach--the vocabulary is a bit too high, some of the content is inappropriate (the 17-year old getting drunk) and, frankly, the narrator's voice would definitely put a room full of 12-year-olds to sleep. For older, interested parties, though, I thought the videos would be pretty interesting. They're a little weak on plot, but the context(s) of the stories are explained, which both helps to teach a lot and really gives a sense of atmosphere of the place and time. Both are less than a year old; one only a few weeks. I hope this guy/these guys put more out in the future.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 12:56
|
|
|
How did ancient education work? Was there a set curriculum? Did you receive a grade? Were there set classes that were required by others? Could you choose what you wanted to learn about? Or, are all of these modern concepts?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 23:30
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:If you asked me for a list of the ten best generals ever or something, I'd consider Caesar for it but I'd have to think about it and I don't know if he'd make the list. Alexander, Hannibal, and Subutai are the ones I'd put on there immediately, others I'd have to think about. Like if we are talking about ancient generals? Because Napoleon would come to my mind first. And Zhukov. Alexander and Subutai were pretty much perfect though and would probably share the no. 1 spot. Hannibal did have Zama. EDIT: Okay, Subutai first, Alexander did conquer only one Empire though and had Philip as a father. euphronius posted:He should have gone farther and murdered most of the Senate. Oh well, Augustus figures that out later. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Jun 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:How did ancient education work? Was there a set curriculum? Did you receive a grade? Were there set classes that were required by others? Could you choose what you wanted to learn about? Or, are all of these modern concepts? In Athens, education was in what they called "music". It was a combination of things we would recognize as music, like playing the lyre and singing poetry (which basically was a means to memorize it, as books were rare and expensive), as well as physical education. Around age 14, that ended and you were on your own to pursue education in more specific fields under a tutor. There's a sense that in terms of Athenians educating other Athenians, there was a kind of communism of the rich involved in tutoring, since you can pick up from bits in Plato and Aristophanes that the traditional way of education was that talented or learned men passed on their knowledge to their disciples in the next generation. The sophists, who were teachers who wandered to Athens in the wake of the Persian War and rise of the Athenian League, were distasteful or otherwise a threat because they expected money in return. I imagine that good Athenians would have an interest in keeping Athens strong by educating those interested young Athenian people who also had the leisure to pursue study. There's also possibly a class issue involved. The success of Athens in the Persian War meant that there was a class of people who had money but not necessarily good breeding -- that is to say, the shipwrights and other industries that had made a fortune supplying the city's war effort. One argument for why the sophists were divisive figures and/or remarkable at all is that they offered a way for these newly rich folks to get their children an education in strictly political arts like public speaking. My understanding is that Spartan education was more a prolonged indoctrination into the military than something we'd recognize as "education". I don't have any knowledge of how the Romans went about education.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 00:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:29 |
|
|
How about Han Wudi of China? Wasn't he able to pretty much break a nomadic confederation by going on the offensive /on/ the steppe? Granted, it was costly as heck, but that's got to be an achievement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 00:19
|
|
