|
Koramei posted:Had you guys really barely heard about it? The reconquista lasted until 1492, the Moors had a profound influence on Spanish (and Portuguese) culture. My grandmother lived in the Algarve so maybe I've been exposed to it more than I realised from that, but I didn't think it was undertold at all. The quality of history education, at least in the United States, varies widely based not only on your school, but also on your individual teacher. For example, my U.S. history class was phenomenal, with a real focus on actual history rather than "rah, rah, go US!" and even units on the history of American Indians, both pre and post European colonization. My world history class, to bring this back to ancient history, included extensive discussions of how the Ancient Egyptians worked with aliens to build the pyramids. Seriously, we watched the video (Ancient Aliens?) showing that Egyptian obelisks were actually acoustic levitation devices used to construct the pyramids. Needless to say, we did not get much exposure to the Moops.
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 07:34 |
|
|
Ras Het posted:Dude, this is kinda really not true. You could start with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_language_influence_on_the_Spanish_language Yeah, perhaps it's not that known, but Spain starts starting at the beginning of the Reconquista, and ends starting with the end of the Reconquista (s. VIII - XV, it took a while).
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Well, history is written by the winners, after all. Er... Roughly about 1987 my whole history class consisted on the Reconquista. For a whole year. And it starts with the Arabs kicking the Godo's rear end. It's certain that the Reconquista has an appeal as "we" "winning", but nobody is hiding that it took SEVEN centuries.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
How did greek nations recruit for their colonies? i don't mean initial military/trading colonies, etc. but later states (ptolemy egypt, seleucids, baktria, etc.) attempting to increase their greek population. I'm imagining these states running marketing campaigns against each other to recruit immigrants, but wiki is lacking on this subject.
Iseeyouseemeseeyou fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Jan 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
I seem to recall that there was a heavy dose of discrimination in favour of Greeks (or Greek speakers) in Ptolemaic Egypt. Something about only Greek speakers being allowed to serve as officers in the armed forces, and things like that. That promise of an automatic advantage over the huge native population might be enough to entice somebody away from home and across the sea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:I seem to recall that there was a heavy dose of discrimination in favour of Greeks (or Greek speakers) in Ptolemaic Egypt. Something about only Greek speakers being allowed to serve as officers in the armed forces, and things like that. That promise of an automatic advantage over the huge native population might be enough to entice somebody away from home and across the sea. Plus, plain old land grants to any Greek willing to settle in the Hellenistic states and fight for the Successor monarchs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:How did greek nations recruit for their colonies? i don't mean initial military/trading colonies, etc. but later states (ptolemy egypt, seleucids, baktria, etc.) attempting to increase their greek population. I'm imagining these states running marketing campaigns against each other to recruit immigrants, but wiki is lacking on this subject. Military settlement was huge thing. Recruit soldiers through promise of land, acquire land/lose soldiers, on repeat. Part of the reason why the Macedonian-Roman war ended so quick was the decades of Hellenic people getting spread all over the East.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
Octy posted:Made a little mention about getting grant money to go off to North Africa or somewhere to study inscriptions... Hell, I'll just name drop him to make you all jealous. It's Dr. Richard Miles. Yep, jealous. I'm the only person I know that wants to vacation in Tunisia. Everyone else thinks I'm just trying to be all Travel Channel-edgy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:I seem to recall that there was a heavy dose of discrimination in favour of Greeks (or Greek speakers) in Ptolemaic Egypt. Something about only Greek speakers being allowed to serve as officers in the armed forces, and things like that. That promise of an automatic advantage over the huge native population might be enough to entice somebody away from home and across the sea. Kopijeger posted:Plus, plain old land grants to any Greek willing to settle in the Hellenistic states and fight for the Successor monarchs. Slim Jim Pickens posted:Military settlement was huge thing. Recruit soldiers through promise of land, acquire land/lose soldiers, on repeat. Yeah, I understand throwing land/power at people is the easy way to get them to come. But I'm wondering if there was competition between the Diadochi for colonists or if it just boiled down to "Ptolemaic Egypt will give you more land than Seleucia"/There were enough colonists to go around.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
physeter posted:Yep, jealous. I'm the only person I know that wants to vacation in Tunisia. Everyone else thinks I'm just trying to be all Travel Channel-edgy. I get the appeal. If only because for some stupid reason, when my brain pictures North Africa, it's all sand dunes and desert mountains. Which I know cannot possibly be correct, because there's tons of people there, and civilization there goes back a crazy long time, etc. Also because Libya is a land of contrast. But I would not go to Libya.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 05:22
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Also because Libya is a land of contrast. But I would not go to Libya. It worked out well for Caro.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
quote:How did greek nations recruit for their colonies? i don't mean initial military/trading colonies, etc. but later states (ptolemy egypt, seleucids, baktria, etc.) attempting to increase their greek population. I'm imagining these states running marketing campaigns against each other to recruit immigrants, but wiki is lacking on this subject. It was as simple as giving them land with strings attached of course. As for competition between the various states, it wasn't really an issue because recruitment of this nature wasn't very common, it was largely mercanaries that come over from the west, and they were recruited by agents, ie the Ptolemaic empire during the fourth Syrian war sent agents into Greece to recruit mercenaries. non military colonies didn't really happen, almost all cities evolved from military colonies, the civilian population increased as time went on. The Seleukid empire for example was basically a benefactor for Athens, and a lot of people came from Athens as a result to settle down. they didn't need to compete with the Ptolemaic empire, because families particularly not well off ones would need little incentive to move to somewhere far more prosperous. Post diadochi wars, the successor state militaries were mainly the descendents of the original armies of the Diadochi wars. Basically for example in the case of the Seleukid empire after Seleukos Nikator died, Antiochos Soter settled down his army in colonies all over his empire from Asia minor to Persia, the greatest concentration basically been in Syria, Mesopotamia and Media. The soldiers get land and probably other benefits like tax breaks, then their sons would be recruited to serve in the royal guard, where they would stay for several years before been dismissed to the reserves, basically replacing their father, then their sons would do the same etc. This included Jews, Persians and Medians as well as other native groups, that were recruited as colonists. Actual new colonists were not very common, but did happen. Or in the case of Ptolemaic egypt their military colony system was basically falling apart by the wend of the 3rd century, because it lacked proper recruitment system, which is why they used mercenaries so much. Mercenaries from Macedonia and Greece and just about anywhere else were quiet common however, and they might settle down as colonists. In the case of Ptolemiac empire they relied very heavily on mercenaries and they regularly recruited from the Aetolian league and other other Greek factions. Then there's the Greco-Baktrians which rarely got new colonists, but managed to do just fine due to the surprisingly large amount of colonists settled by Alexander there, and the heavy use of Iranians in the military. quote:Part of the reason why the Macedonian-Roman war ended so quick was the decades of Hellenic people getting spread all over the East. The Antigonid state was at its strongest manpower point since basically Alexander during the wars against Rome. The reforms of Phillipos V and Perseus, had given Makedonia manpower it had not seen in a very long time. For example at the battle Cynoscephalae Phillipos only had 2000 cavalry including his Thesslian allies. After that, Thessaly gained its Independence. And at the battle of Pydna, Perseus had 3000 Makedonian cavalry plus 1000 Thracians making 4000 total, basically double the amount of cavalry in about 30 odd years between the battles, similar story with the heavy infantry. Most colonists that went east came out of Greece, post diadochi wars. Also the Antigonid state can only maintain so many soldiers regardless of population, since the state equipped the army. And it was much poorer then both rome and the the hellenic states to the east. Socky fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 12:12
|
|
|
Christoff posted:I highly recommend the book "Soldiers and Ghosts" - http://www.amazon.com/Soldiers-Ghos...iers+and+ghosts But yeah, dude loves him some phalangites.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
How were the big German and Celtic armies that actually managed to defeat Roman legions recruited, sustained and managed? Who were they recruited from, and with what incentive? It seems Rome was in part such a power because it was good at getting thousands of people into armour, listening to orders about killing other folks. And it had the logistics to feed the legions, and incentive them somehow. Part of that ben seemed to required a big city. And I always thought their German contemporaries were just a bunch of farmers living in small communities scattered all around central Europe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:How were the big German and Celtic armies that actually managed to defeat Roman legions recruited, sustained and managed? Who were they recruited from, and with what incentive? Yep, pretty much. We don't know for certain, but it's a very good bet that the logistics of large barbarian forces were nightmarish. "Unite the clans" sounds like a good idea until someone realizes that the united clans eat tons upon tons of food and that 50,000 of them in a small concentrated area is a recipe for starvation, disease and civil war. And this is mostly infantry, the steppes people with a heavy cavalry focus had greater mobility but at the expense of needing to graze 1-2 horses per man in a concentrated area. You can distribute those people out over a large area, tell them to forage and try to minimize the impact, but good luck getting them all back together again. Depictions of barbarian chieftains as stupid lunks is common, and pretty unfair. A dumb Roman commander was infinitely more likely than a dumb German war leader. But this does help explain why large barbarian armies were so aggressive towards settled peoples: they didn't have much choice. A tribal leader that managed to assemble such a force had to use it or lose it, whereas the Romans could dismiss their armies and then re-levy them with a snap of their fingers. For the barbarians, it was like having to play speed chess against an untimed opponent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
physeter posted:For the barbarians, it was like having to play speed chess against an untimed opponent. This is a really interesting way of putting it. Casear's Gallic commentaries back this up too -- tribes had to time their movements and migrations very carefully because of both harvests and potentially hostile neighbors. Vercengetorix himself was successful because he moved quickly; once he parked himself in Alesia, the clock was ticking loudly, and he had to give up because his allies decided they wanted to eat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:How were the big German and Celtic armies that actually managed to defeat Roman legions recruited, sustained and managed? Who were they recruited from, and with what incentive? Logistics were nightmarish, yes, but as you said, the average German/Gallic/Britannic peasant was a farmer- and there were a LOT of peasants - therefore you have more food to support massive armies that were capable of defeating the Romans.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Noctis Horrendae posted:Logistics were nightmarish, yes, but as you said, the average German/Gallic/Britannic peasant was a farmer- and there were a LOT of peasants - therefore you have more food to support massive armies that were capable of defeating the Romans. So was the average Roman/Greek/Persian. Most people were farmers back in that day. All that food also needs to get to where it's needed, and the Romans were way better at it. The barbarian tribes were able to field larger armies for a short period of time because most it was expected for most fighting age men to be able to pick up a spear and shield and fight in battle while the crops don't need to be tended. This is the basic order of war in ancient societies. Obviously, the Legions didn't follow these rules. So they're smaller. And while the average Legionary isn't going to beat the biggest baddest Germanic warrior, he's far more skilled and dedicated than some farmer who really just wants to go home and tend to his crops/family.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:So was the average Roman/Greek/Persian. Most people were farmers back in that day. All that food also needs to get to where it's needed, and the Romans were way better at it. What I meant by that was that the peasant population of Gaul, Germany and practically all of Western Europe significantly outnumbered the Romans, so for the brief periods that certain regions were united for (Vercingetorix and that one dude from the Senones that sacked Rome come to mind) they were able to field comparatively large armies capable of even defeating the Romans. tl;dr More mans at home means more mans sent out to kill other mans.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
So how did the tribes motivate their men? I assume it's actually rather hard to get people to walk into a situation where they have to kill other people with a high chance of dying of dysentery or disembowelment. For the Romans, I assume it was a combination of 1. martial ideology ("virtus" etc), 2. financial motives, 3. citizenship. What did the individual tribesmen fight for? Fear of being enslaved by the Romans? Loot?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Almost certainly the prospect of looting. Then there's all sorts of things surrounding their status and prestige within their own social groups; that's hardly unique to Rome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
Uh, I thought Rome consistently smashed the ship out of opposition in Europe during the late Republic/early Empire? Most big defeats in the west seem to be due to traps. By the decline of the West the situation seems a bit different as "Barbarian" commanders probably had roman training and there was a lot less differentiating a legionnaire and a barbarian soldier.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:Uh, I thought Rome consistently smashed the ship out of opposition in Europe during the late Republic/early Empire? Most big defeats in the west seem to be due to traps. By the decline of the West the situation seems a bit different as "Barbarian" commanders probably had roman training and there was a lot less differentiating a legionnaire and a barbarian soldier. Most of the time, Rome got its rear end kicked by tribes or peoples that they hadn't encountered before for a few battles and/or campaigns, figured out how to counter their tactics and then turned things around.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
Noctis Horrendae posted:What I meant by that was that the peasant population of Gaul, Germany and practically all of Western Europe significantly outnumbered the Romans, so for the brief periods that certain regions were united for (Vercingetorix and that one dude from the Senones that sacked Rome come to mind) they were able to field comparatively large armies capable of even defeating the Romans. I don't think that was the case. Are you saying that some of the tribes of Gaul had more population than the entire Mediterranean coast?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:I don't think that was the case. Are you saying that some of the tribes of Gaul had more population than the entire Mediterranean coast? I'm saying that Western Europe in General was more populous than Rome and that when particular regions were united - such as when Vercingetorix rallied literally all but two (?) Gallic tribes - they would outnumber Rome's legions. Basically, Gaul at its militaristic high point outnumbered Roman legions at the time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:Uh, I thought Rome consistently smashed the ship out of opposition in Europe during the late Republic/early Empire? Most big defeats in the west seem to be due to traps. By the decline of the West the situation seems a bit different as "Barbarian" commanders probably had roman training and there was a lot less differentiating a legionnaire and a barbarian soldier.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
Noctis Horrendae posted:I'm saying that Western Europe in General was more populous than Rome and that when particular regions were united - such as when Vercingetorix rallied literally all but two (?) Gallic tribes - they would outnumber Rome's legions. Basically, Gaul at its militaristic high point outnumbered Roman legions at the time. Okay, you're saying "Rome". Like, the city? That's obvious. The empire? That's impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Okay, you're saying "Rome". Like, the city? That's obvious. The empire? That's impossible. The Republic's armies were smaller than Gaul's armies at Gaul's high point militaristically is what I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
Not because they had less people though; the Roman armies were a much smaller percentage of their populations than the Gallic ones. The 'civilized' parts of the ancient world were considerably more densely populated. (didn't we just go over this like half a page ago?) Also have you got a source/ examples for Noctis Horrendae posted:Most of the time, Rome got its rear end kicked by tribes or peoples that they hadn't encountered before for a few battles and/or campaigns, figured out how to counter their tactics and then turned things around. Koramei fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
Noctis Horrendae posted:The Republic's armies were smaller than Gaul's armies at Gaul's high point militaristically is what I'm saying. I don't know if they were larger than the combined legions, but in proportion to their total populations, the Gauls had a much larger army. They do this by a general freeman levy, where their farmers take up arms and go to war, rather a system where they stay at home and farm intensively to support a professional army, which is sort of what I think you're implying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
Also, the Roman empire that faced off against the Gauls was a lot differrent than the one that faced the Germanic invasions. The central authority was weak enough that they couldn't get those well trained, well equipped legions on the spot in time to fight off the hordes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
Maybe my facts are off, but I guarantee that in actual Western European battles - against Gauls or Germans - the Romans were almost always outnumbered.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
Noctis Horrendae posted:Maybe my facts are off, but I guarantee that in actual Western European battles - against Gauls or Germans - the Romans were almost always outnumbered.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Not in the battle of the Teutoburg forrest. Yeah, that's one major exception.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Maybe the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest was an exception, but it still meant Arminius somehow managed to get 10-30.000 people together. Actually no, there was at least another battle that ended badly for the Romans in the area, but all I remember is from some archaeology article I read years ago. But I recently saw our local states museum having an exhibition about this forgotten battle in the north. If I can free some time from being busy in real life, I think I'll go wander over during the next days and take a look at it, then maybe make an effort post. Edit: The core of Arminius' success was most likely due to him being a Roman hostage most of his life. He essentially learned a lot about Roman tactics and strategy and simply applied this knowledge to form an army capable of giving the Romans a good fight. Libluini fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
Noctis Horrendae posted:Maybe my facts are off, but I guarantee that in actual Western European battles - against Gauls or Germans - the Romans were almost always outnumbered. The east is probably a better example of the Romans just deadlocked but that's a different situation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
Noctis Horrendae posted:What I meant by that was that the peasant population of Gaul, Germany and practically all of Western Europe significantly outnumbered the Romans, so for the brief periods that certain regions were united for (Vercingetorix and that one dude from the Senones that sacked Rome come to mind) they were able to field comparatively large armies capable of even defeating the Romans. I doubt maximum army size is a very good proxy for total population. Libluini posted:Actually no, there was at least another battle that ended badly for the Romans in the area, but all I remember is from some archaeology article I read years ago. But I recently saw our local states museum having an exhibition about this forgotten battle in the north. If I can free some time from being busy in real life, I think I'll go wander over during the next days and take a look at it, then maybe make an effort post. Are you thinking of the Battle of Arausio? It's a good example of why Noctis Horrendae's logic is flawed. Yes the Cimbri outnumbered the Romans, but only by deploying literally every Cimbri on earth. Doesn't mean there were more Cimbri than Romans.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
It's difficult to do qualitative comparisons between the Romans and their various enemies, because typically the times when the Romans got seriously smacked were shortly preceded by terrible Roman civil wars and some asshat general stripping the regional border defense to make a bid for emperor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 09:35
|
|
|
No army is invincible and the Romans certainly lost battles because their soldiers weren't good enough, or the command sucked, or the enemy was simply better than them (any battle against Hannibal, for example). But it's definitely the case that a significant part of why they started getting defeated more regularly later on was that their enemies not only were familiar with them, but had trained in the legions and knew exactly how they worked. It's not a coincidence that when you look at the commanders of many of the crushing defeats Rome suffers, people like Arminius, raised and trained in the legions, are common. The legions were incredibly well designed fighting machines, but you also have to give them the fact that for a long time, Rome fought people who had no idea what they were up against. When the legions were attacking tribes in Gaul it was closer to an alien invasion than anything else. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 15:01 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 14:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 07:34 |
|
|
Part of the reason tribal levies in Gaul could be raised quickly were, ah, religious motivations. The last man who arrived was sacrificed to the gods by being burned alive. I agree that relative populations cannot be discerned by army size. We actually have pretty good numbers for the population of Italy during the Second Punic War. Polybius gives us census figures for the time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 20:31
|
|
