|
I warned you about walls bro I told you dog "IT KEEPS HAPPENING"
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2021 18:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 18:06 |
|
|
I don't think it's inevitable that either Rome or Carthage would destroy and absorb the other, but Rome's aggressiveness back in those days did kinda mean that the Romans were determined to keep slamming their faces against Carthage until it gave way. If Carthage managed to survive, the failed Roman military adventures could dramatically change the culture of Rome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2021 18:30
|
|
|
Even if Rome continues to exist as a state without winning the second punic war, they probably have their Italian empire fractured beyond easy repair. They probably can't hold onto Sicily or Greece without a unified or mostly unified Italy, and you basically set the clock back a few hundred years. Could they have done it again? Maybe. But by the time they finished the geopolitical landscape could be wildly different to the point where it's pointless to speculate A possible analogy is Athens, which had its empire dismantled but its core territorial sovereignty preserved at the end of the pelloponnesian war, and a few decades later managed to recover to the point that they were starting to put together a new empire when Philip II rolled up. The demography that made Athens a top pick for being dominant in Greece hadn't gone away, but the intervening time meant rolling the dice for every single one of her neighbors on whether or not they'd get strong enough to negate that--and Macedon did. The notion that Rome became more willing to integrate foreigners because of a humiliation here feels like nonsense because they were already radically inclusive by the standards of the time. I'd be more interested in an alternate history in 340AD or so where something spooks them into welcoming the foederati as full citizens and members of the legions and successfully turning the Germans who want to cross the Rhine into a strength instead of a weakness.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2021 18:51
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:The notion that Rome became more willing to integrate foreigners because of a humiliation here feels like nonsense because they were already radically inclusive by the standards of the time. Have you seen this argument being made somewhere? Everything I've read accepts the idea that integrating people was a part of Rome's character from early on. It's established in their self-mythology, which sure it's just a story but they wouldn't tell it if it didn't reflect truths. But they did have to go through the Social War to learn that there needed to be fundamental changes in what "integration" means if they wanted to maintain their empire.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2021 19:08
|
|
|
Acoup did a full series of essays on it, that's where I got it from. The specific topic was debunking the alt-right talking point that Rome fell because it lost its fundamental strength by becoming too diverse. But the first essay in the series is specifically on Roman willingness to integrate during the conquest of Italy. Though as you say basically any piece about early Rome will talk about how they did a good job making their conquests want to stay as part of the empire, rather than splitting at the first opportunity e: acoup only argues that they were pragmatically inclusive, not inclusive from a moral standpoint, and obviously the social war changed what was pragmatic. I probably spoke poorly in my previous post. The idea that Rome would adapt to wars isn't the ridiculous part. The part that felt ridiculous is the notion that Rome would turn its diversity into a strength because of the loss--not because that doesn't make sense, but because it was already the case cheetah7071 fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Oct 21, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2021 19:11
|
|
|
 I’m reading this now it’s really entertaining. It’s just beard basically riffing on whatever she wants somewhat stapled to a basic outline of Roman history. She spends a lot of time discussing and criticizing evidence for old familiar ideas and myths. It’s great
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2021 19:17
|
|
|
Rome would have kept fighting wars with Carthage over and over again until either Rome was burned to the ground or Carthage was. The counterfactual where Carthage abolishes Rome is interesting though. Child sacrifice for all! One wonders how that changes the rise of Christianity . . .
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2021 19:19
|
|
|
Oh that beard book ( like her pompeii book) has gorgeous and ample color plates so Don’t get the digital version
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2021 19:21
|
|
|
I think you can imagine a Carthage victory without destroying Rome, where it's sidelined in favor of a Latin League dominated by one or more non-Rome cities. Which of course could end up being very similar with a different name - that would make for an entertainingly pointless feature in an alt-history novel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2021 19:26
|
|
|
It would have been Hannibal being King of Italy probably.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2021 19:27
|
|
|
I find it a bit implausible that Carthage would be able to project enough force to pacify an occupied Italy, even if they sacked Rome and forced a political surrender e: especially since most of what progress he did make came in the form of offering people their freedom from Rome if they joined him. If he just said sike after the war, he'd very rapidly have a second war on his hands cheetah7071 fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Oct 21, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2021 19:35
|
|
|
It would be Hannibal as King of the (non Roman ) Italians He would then probably go conquer Carthage so. Back to where we started !!
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2021 19:36
|
|
|
Oh I see what you're saying. Giving up any pretense of being Carthaginian and just declaring yourself the head of an Italian league, which is conveniently backed by the threat of your army? That feels more plausible. The title "king" probably doesn't get invoked though
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2021 19:39
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:The notion that Rome became more willing to integrate foreigners because of a humiliation here feels like nonsense because they were already radically inclusive by the standards of the time. I'd be more interested in an alternate history in 340AD or so where something spooks them into welcoming the foederati as full citizens and members of the legions and successfully turning the Germans who want to cross the Rhine into a strength instead of a weakness. Mine personal fav alt history is if Augustus had not stopped the advances into Germany after Varrus' disaster, and the Elbe had been the border instead. That means you have a more defensible situation between the Elbe and the Danube, with ~100 miles of land between them. having only 100 miles between both major river borders also means that the troops are far more connected, rather than what happened with the Rhine and Danube Legions at each others throats. this could lead to more stability during the crisis of the third century, and potentially very different outcomes of those various upheavals where the soldiers named a guy emperor. there is also now a lightly populated northern frontier that has plenty of room for the various foederati to have places to settle in as well. I do not know if anything would actually change, but there is the potential there for some very different events to play out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2021 19:39
|
|
|
euphronius posted:It would be Hannibal as King of the (non Roman ) Italians
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2021 21:22
|
|
|
I don’t think that the scenarios of Carthage dominating or destroying Rome after the Second Punic War that have been discussed here are very realistic. Hannibal would never have been able to win a long grinding war in Italy. When the war in Italy shifted to being based on sieges and battles over walled cities after Cannae, Hannibal’s momentum stalled out entirely. Hannibal’s supply situation was always precarious, and he never had naval dominance over the Italian coast, making prolonged sieges nearly impossible. All the major Italian cities he gained control of either defected to him willingly, or were taken by treachery or surprise assault. None of those methods were realistic ways to capture the city of Rome itself. Additionally, he was never able to compete with Rome’s ability to put 4+ different field armies in different places at the same time. Rome could be laying siege to three places simultaneously while also maneuvering in response to Hannibal’s movements, but Hannibal could only be in one place at a time. Because of this, Hannibal becoming “King of Italy” strikes me as very implausible. The major cities (for example, Capua) that defected to him during the war did it on terms stating they could not be compelled to contribute troops, tribute, or even accept a Carthaginian garrison. Additionally, the city's local troops could not be compelled to campaign outside their home territory. That’s not a great setup for running an empire, or even a league of a cities. It gave Hannibal all the liabilities of defending his allies, but without the benefits of his allies providing major support to him. Hannibal’s only prospect of victory was a negotiated peace after his string of decisive victories in the first few years of the war. Perhaps if he had marched on Rome immediately after Cannae Rome would have felt compelled to negotiate (although I think that is unlikely). However, he could not have laid siege to Rome at that time due to his extremely precarious supply situation. Since he could not conquer the city, the terms of any treaty here would not result in Rome being permanently destroyed. At best, he could probably get Rome to cede Sicily and Sardinia, withdraw from Spain, and pay an indemnity. He had no base in Italy at that point, and no way to demand territorial control in Italy. Hannibal and Carthage would have viewed a treaty with terms like this as being a great victory. Unlike Rome, Hannibal and Carthage did not think winning a war required destroying your enemy as an independent entity. However, this would have left Rome around as a major power, and a new war probably breaks out again in a few years. In this hypothetical next war, Carthage probably would not be able to replicate the string of decisive victories in Italy that Hannibal's army won.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2021 21:28
|
|
|
CrypticFox posted:I don’t think that the scenarios of Carthage dominating or destroying Rome after the Second Punic War that have been discussed here are very realistic. Hannibal would never have been able to win a long grinding war in Italy. When the war in Italy shifted to being based on sieges and battles over walled cities after Cannae, Hannibal’s momentum stalled out entirely. Hannibal’s supply situation was always precarious, and he never had naval dominance over the Italian coast, making prolonged sieges nearly impossible. All the major Italian cities he gained control of either defected to him willingly, or were taken by treachery or surprise assault. None of those methods were realistic ways to capture the city of Rome itself. Additionally, he was never able to compete with Rome’s ability to put 4+ different field armies in different places at the same time. Rome could be laying siege to three places simultaneously while also maneuvering in response to Hannibal’s movements, but Hannibal could only be in one place at a time. He could not have taken Rome by force, but if he had marched on the city immediately, the terrified populace might have thrown open the gates. the problem is if they do not, he looks like a moron in front of his men, and that might lessen the willingness of Italian allies to join him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2021 21:33
|
|
|
mycomancy posted:"God dammit, they have walls! Our only weakness!" "They also have ships! Our other only weakness." "And they also have cavalry! Our other only weakness." "Theban farmers! Our other only weakness!" "Putting their good troops on the other side! Our other only weakness!" Cessna fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Oct 21, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2021 21:35
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:The ACOUP guy describes roman multiculturalism as having a Goku foreign policy. Rome was fairly inclusive, as mentioned, but levying troops from a conquered tribe or city is a pretty normal part of warfare in any time period. It's basically a form of taxation or war reparations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2021 21:53
|
|
|
When I was reading Soldiers and Silver, the author went to great lengths to point out that Rome's ability to just repeatedly raise armies, and deploy drat near every able-bodied male in a total war, was actually matched by Carthage. In Spain, they kept losing armies and raising new ones the same way Rome did in Italy. After the battle of Zama, when Hannibal was defeated and Scipio are at the door, their first instinct was to just raise another army and keep going. Rome was better at this kind of attrition strategy, of course, because they had more manpower to begin with and (in this period) straight up didn't tax their Italian allies, instead expecting them to provide their entire imperial obligation in the form of soldiers or ships. Rome also had the distinct advantage that it had thoroughly passified its immediate neighborhood. If, say, the Italian celts were immediately adjacent to Rome instead of all the way up in the north, then Hannibal probably could have leveraged that into the allies and supplies needed to deliver a knockout blow. Carthage did have such a neighbor in the Numidians, who were in the middle of a civil war, where the two sides naturally slotted into being pro-Roman and pro-Carthaginian (even swapping midway through the war which side was which). Scipio spent a large amount of time helping his Numidian allies win their civil war in order to secure their support, and you can even view the battle of Zama as a proxy war in the Numidian civil war. So in a real sense, the deciding fact in why Rome could deliver a knockout blow but Carthage couldn't was just the shape of their empires. Rome had no unconquered neighbors. Carthage did.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2021 22:03
|
|
|
Ithle01 posted:Rome was fairly inclusive, as mentioned, but levying troops from a conquered tribe or city is a pretty normal part of warfare in any time period. It's basically a form of taxation or war reparations. Soldiers and Silver goes into this extensively, and the five major mediterranean powers of the period (Rome, Carthage, Egypt, Macedon, and the Seleucids) represented a spectrum of maximizing taxation and maximizing conscription. Egypt was on one end of the spectrum--native Egyptians were completely unarmed and the entirety of their exploitation was economic, and the Ptolemies used that money to hire mercenaries to make up for their rather lackluster manpower base. Rome was the exact opposite end, where conquered states weren't taxed at all, but were completely trusted to fully participate in the army. The other three were all somewhere in the middle. One of the big theses of the book was that the further you shift the balance towards conscription, and away from taxation, the more successful you were--at least in this very specific moment in history.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2021 22:07
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:Soldiers and Silver goes into this extensively, and the five major mediterranean powers of the period (Rome, Carthage, Egypt, Macedon, and the Seleucids) represented a spectrum of maximizing taxation and maximizing conscription. Egypt was on one end of the spectrum--native Egyptians were completely unarmed and the entirety of their exploitation was economic, and the Ptolemies used that money to hire mercenaries to make up for their rather lackluster manpower base. Rome was the exact opposite end, where conquered states weren't taxed at all, but were completely trusted to fully participate in the army. The other three were all somewhere in the middle. One of the big theses of the book was that the further you shift the balance towards conscription, and away from taxation, the more successful you were--at least in this very specific moment in history. Didn't the Ptolemies have the machimoi? They weren't exactly native Egyptians, but had lived in the Delta for a couple hundred years by the time Alexander got there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2021 22:39
|
|
|
FishFood posted:Didn't the Ptolemies have the machimoi? They weren't exactly native Egyptians, but had lived in the Delta for a couple hundred years by the time Alexander got there. It didn't discuss them specifically (to my memory, it's been a while), but checking the wikipedia page, it says the battle of Raphia was when they rose to prominence in Ptolemaic Egypt, which I remember in book as being mentioned as a time when, out of desperation, the Ptolemies deigned to allow native Egyptians into their army. And then it immediately caused a rebellion which the state barely survived, because they now had weapons but still didn't have any de jure power and were completely subordinate to the Greek settlers. The author fed this back into their bigger thesis by pointing out that the battle of Raphia was one of the times when Ptolemaic Egypt was most imperially successful, punching above its weight class, by actually using its massive population as soldiers instead of moneymakers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2021 22:45
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:Soldiers and Silver goes into this extensively, and the five major mediterranean powers of the period (Rome, Carthage, Egypt, Macedon, and the Seleucids) represented a spectrum of maximizing taxation and maximizing conscription. Egypt was on one end of the spectrum--native Egyptians were completely unarmed and the entirety of their exploitation was economic, and the Ptolemies used that money to hire mercenaries to make up for their rather lackluster manpower base. Rome was the exact opposite end, where conquered states weren't taxed at all, but were completely trusted to fully participate in the army. The other three were all somewhere in the middle. One of the big theses of the book was that the further you shift the balance towards conscription, and away from taxation, the more successful you were--at least in this very specific moment in history. That's pretty interesting and I'll have to look into that book. I was just trying to tell Tunicate that this phenomenon isn't unique to Rome by any stretch and is a fairly normal facet of warfare throughout all of human history going from tribal warfare all the way up to Operation Unthinkable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2021 22:46
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:yes, they wore a subarmalis, but it was not like the medieval gambeson, being a very thick and protective garment that is armor in and of itself. migration era warriors also did not have significant thick padding under their mail. how do you know what kind of paddings romans and migration era warriors had?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2021 22:50
|
|
|
ChubbyChecker posted:it's not known what the romans exactly wore under their armors Lorica microskirta
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2021 23:12
|
|
|
Since the Romans were just as smart as anyone else, why is it unlikely that they had a convergent evolution process, so to speak, towards the same kind of thick padded garment that the later medieval period used? I truly have not a clue what they wore, but it seems totally plausible that they'd reach a similar endpoint given similar goals.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2021 00:07
|
|
|
CrypticFox posted:I don’t think that the scenarios of Carthage dominating or destroying Rome after the Second Punic War that have been discussed here are very realistic. I mean, sure. All counterfactuals are counterfactual. They're profoundly speculative and rest on some fact we know about history being inverted or ignored. This is partially why they're kind of dumb. What we're arguing about is partially the influence of Rome going forward, but also the durability of the Roman system. It's mostly vapor but I'll make my stance even more explicit - I think the Roman success in the following centuries has a lot to do with it having a momentum in expansion that fuels an expansion in citizenry, enabling it to keep growing its legitimately loyal, core army (for the contrast between the Roman method and the alternative, see the Ptolemaic discussion above). And I think that like the vast majority of rising powers, the reversal of a rise in power (here, continued expansion) causes an inward turning, aka I think if Rome really, truly gets its rear end kicked in the Republican Era, it will start being a lot less generous with its citizenship rules, and this in turn will take a lot of the fuel out of their engine. Obviously this is not realistic, because the probability of past events is 1. But it's a way of reframing and rethinking our preexisting assumptions about what made Rome, and its neighbors, tick. And I think we've mostly been ignoring what was possibly the more important question: what's the next several hundred years like, with Rome unable to claim hegemony over the west? Unfortunately as much as I'd like to read the althistory novel set in the 300CE where Carthage didn't fall, I don't even really know where to start on that beyond "a lot less weighty questions about Rome's uniqueness."
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2021 00:24
|
|
|
My bet on the "Rome doesn't conquor Carthage" scenario is that the map ends up looking like some of the later Eastern Roman/Muslim settlements - one power block based in Egypt and North Africa, one in Mesopotamia and Persia, and one perhaps in Italy and Gaul, with the Balkans, Aegean, Iberia, Syria, and the Levant in flux, depending on where the steppe nomads are cracking heads at a given time. So much of what follows depends entirely on the Romans being able to sail with impunity, and unless that condition happens via the rise of a hegemon, we get a balance of power situation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2021 00:33
|
|
|
Tulip posted:I mean, sure. All counterfactuals are counterfactual. They're profoundly speculative and rest on some fact we know about history being inverted or ignored. This is partially why they're kind of dumb. What we're arguing about is partially the influence of Rome going forward, but also the durability of the Roman system. That's fair, I wrote that response primarily because I thought the idea of Hannibal becoming King of Italy after a victory in the 2nd Punic War was too implausible to be considered a serious possibility. It was a bit pedantic though. Tulip posted:It's mostly vapor but I'll make my stance even more explicit - I think the Roman success in the following centuries has a lot to do with it having a momentum in expansion that fuels an expansion in citizenry, enabling it to keep growing its legitimately loyal, core army (for the contrast between the Roman method and the alternative, see the Ptolemaic discussion above). And I think that like the vast majority of rising powers, the reversal of a rise in power (here, continued expansion) causes an inward turning, aka I think if Rome really, truly gets its rear end kicked in the Republican Era, it will start being a lot less generous with its citizenship rules, and this in turn will take a lot of the fuel out of their engine. I'm not sure I buy the idea that Rome getting its assed kicked in the Republican era would cause them to be less generous with citizenship rules. Citizenship policy didn't change much between the 4th century BC (when the system of latin citizenship/socii emerged) and early 1st century BC (when the social wars occurred). This was the bulk of the Republican era. In order for them to become less generous with citizenship policy in that time, they would have to roll back existing policies, and perhaps even remove rights from people who already have them, which seems unworkable. I do think that Roman expansion could be curtailed without a change in citizenship policy though, and that could definitely happen if Roman suffers serious losses in Republican-era wars.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2021 02:15
|
|
|
Rome probably doesn't inherit an eastern empire in royal wills if it doesn't look like a winner, at the very least
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2021 03:07
|
|
|
Kylaer posted:Since the Romans were just as smart as anyone else, why is it unlikely that they had a convergent evolution process, so to speak, towards the same kind of thick padded garment that the later medieval period used? I truly have not a clue what they wore, but it seems totally plausible that they'd reach a similar endpoint given similar goals. it's probably too hot. Also, the Romans were not as advanced in various technologies as medieval people. Their agriculture was pretty inefficient for example. All I seem to see about Roman clothing is that almost everybody wore simple rectangles rather than anything complicated, their textile industry might also lacked something. cheetah7071 posted:When I was reading Soldiers and Silver, the author went to great lengths to point out that Rome's ability to just repeatedly raise armies, and deploy drat near every able-bodied male in a total war, was actually matched by Carthage. In Spain, they kept losing armies and raising new ones the same way Rome did in Italy. After the battle of Zama, when Hannibal was defeated and Scipio are at the door, their first instinct was to just raise another army and keep going. Rome was better at this kind of attrition strategy, of course, because they had more manpower to begin with and (in this period) straight up didn't tax their Italian allies, instead expecting them to provide their entire imperial obligation in the form of soldiers or ships. Rome also had the distinct advantage that it had thoroughly passified its immediate neighborhood. If, say, the Italian celts were immediately adjacent to Rome instead of all the way up in the north, then Hannibal probably could have leveraged that into the allies and supplies needed to deliver a knockout blow. Carthage did have such a neighbor in the Numidians, who were in the middle of a civil war, where the two sides naturally slotted into being pro-Roman and pro-Carthaginian (even swapping midway through the war which side was which). Scipio spent a large amount of time helping his Numidian allies win their civil war in order to secure their support, and you can even view the battle of Zama as a proxy war in the Numidian civil war. So in a real sense, the deciding fact in why Rome could deliver a knockout blow but Carthage couldn't was just the shape of their empires. Rome had no unconquered neighbors. Carthage did. Carthage was quite similar to Rome in its settler policy. Both were a big break from the way the Greeks and Phoenicians did colonies. Those guys just let their colonies be independent states, but Rome and Carthage made sure they were extensions of the home city.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2021 03:19
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:it's probably too hot. Also, the Romans were not as advanced in various technologies as medieval people. Their agriculture was pretty inefficient for example. All I seem to see about Roman clothing is that almost everybody wore simple rectangles rather than anything complicated, their textile industry might also lacked something. For both Rome and migration era warriors, there is just no evidence of big, thick gambeson type garments worn in conjunction with mail. Period art/sculpture do not show it, and there is no surviving evidence of it that i know of, granted fabric would be exceeding hard to find. Part of how we know they were prevalent in the medieval period is since they were useful on their own, so they start showing up in art and get mentioned in surviving writings. Archers and less well off soldiers would just fight in gambeson if that was all they had, since it was still a relatively effective defense. There is no similar depictions or mentions of a similar garment in the classical or migration periods that i know of. Wearing something under it, the subarmalis, makes perfect sense, but it does not seems to be a heavy duty, quilted and padded thing like a gambeson, which is what gave medieval knights enough protection that Muslim accounts from the crusades describe knights with multiple arrows sticking out of them that burst mail and lodged in the gambeson, but did not harm the knight. Edit : To be clear, they likely wore thick stuff under it, but that is significantly different that a thing made out of 30 layers of fabric and padded to absorb blows. They were not counting on their armor to be like what medieval knights had, it was there to stop incidental damage, as well as providing excellent defense against slashes and cuts, as well as thrusts from broader tipped swords of the day. WoodrowSkillson fucked around with this message at 03:59 on Oct 22, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2021 03:49
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:it's probably too hot. Also, the Romans were not as advanced in various technologies as medieval people. Their agriculture was pretty inefficient for example. All I seem to see about Roman clothing is that almost everybody wore simple rectangles rather than anything complicated, their textile industry might also lacked something. That's reasonable. I knew Roman metallurgy was less advanced than that of medieval times, but I just kind of figured that sewing thick, padded cloth wouldn't have the same kind of technological requirement. But I really know nothing about that topic so it's totally plausible that it did.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2021 03:51
|
|
|
Quote /= edit
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2021 03:59
|
|
|
Kylaer posted:Sure, sounds interesting, what's a good source about it? For the fun and possibly false bits, Kormakssaga / Cormac's Saga. For actual technicalities and law, Gulatingslagan and Jyske Lov may be appropriate, though mostly as pertains to why it is outlawed. M. Ciklatinis "The Old Icelandic Duel" is a good analysis if you can find it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2021 06:41
|
|
|
was there any sense of what germanic tribes were up to during the Second Punic War, or were they just keeping to themselves? Is there a reason Hannibal never allied with them?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2021 12:08
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:was there any sense of what germanic tribes were up to during the Second Punic War, or were they just keeping to themselves? I'm under the impression that thanks to Gaul tribes being in the way, Germanic tribes didn't really have contact with Hannibal. With Gauls he sent emissaries and allied with or fought them if they got in the way of crossing the Alps. Unlike Gauls, Germanics east of Gaul wouldn't have had cause to fight Romans even if Hannibal would send emissaries that far, not at least until migrations of Cimbri and Teutones.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2021 12:46
|
|
|
Kylaer posted:Sure, sounds interesting, what's a good source about it? I know this is a podcast, not a book, but it's a good podcast: Saga Thing It's done by two Profs who specialize in Icelandic Lit, and this episode is specifically on the ritual "Holmgang" duels.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2021 15:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 18:06 |
|
|
Tulip posted:Unfortunately as much as I'd like to read the althistory novel set in the 300CE where Carthage didn't fall Good news! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash:_A_Secret_History well sort of.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2021 15:44
|
|
