View Full Version : Successor State + Carthage 'What If?' Question
icydawgfish
12-27-2008, 01:13
Was there even the remotest possibility that by the start date of EB, any of the successor states (Macedonia, Seleucids, Ptolemies) could have conquered the other diadochi and reformed Alexander's Empire. If so, when and how, and if not, could they still have carved out strong(er) kingdoms/empires through the many wars (Chremoidian War, Syrian Wars, Macedonian Wars, and the numerous struggles in the Seleucid east). For example, could the Ptolemies have absolutely dominated the Seleucids in their wars or could the Macedonians have invaded Italy to aid Hannibal if planned, along with other scenarios like that.
Also, could Carthage have won the first Punic War and if so, how would this have impacted future relations with Rome?
I think that in the 3rd Syrian War Ptolemy actually managed to conquer Babylon.
But the Macedonians were taking their Aegean territories and Ptolemy had to withdrew when a Seleukid army approached from Anatolia. I think that the Ptolemies did walk away with Antioch, though.
I know Hannibal could have won the battle of Zama, near the 2nd Punic wars end, if the Sacred Band cavalry hadn't been denied to him (taught to me by Eb:beam:) or if he had maybe advanced on Rome after Cannae, the Romans could have been beaten.
Plus if the Seleucids had defeated the Romans at Magnesia, then during thier later push to Egypt wouldn't have turned back due to Rome's threatened interventiion. Though i can;t remember if Magnesia came before or after that now i think of it...:shame:
icydawgfish
12-27-2008, 02:01
But how would the second Punic War had turned out assuming Carthage won the first? There certainly wouldn't be a need to go over the alps, or there may not have even been a second Punic War, or it could have just been a rehash of the first. Think of it as an opinion/speculative history question in reference to the OP.
You can't live in a world of If's for everything. For instance, what if Alexander of Epiros had managed to conquer every land up to the Pillars of Hercules, as he and Alexander the Great had supposedly composed to do? Then everything from the edge of Africa and Spain to India would have belonged to Greece. The Romans would have been wiped out or subjigated at their infant stage, and we may never have had a Roman Empire. Scary stuff isnt it
Isn't EB itself a giant What If?
Why shouldn't we be allowed to imagine alternatives to historical reality? How dull would we be then?
I know Hannibal could have won the battle of Zama, near the 2nd Punic wars end, if the Sacred Band cavalry hadn't been denied to him (taught to me by Eb:beam:) or if he had maybe advanced on Rome after Cannae, the Romans could have been beaten.
Plus if the Seleucids had defeated the Romans at Magnesia, then during thier later push to Egypt wouldn't have turned back due to Rome's threatened interventiion. Though i can;t remember if Magnesia came before or after that now i think of it...:shame:
I doubt the sacred band would have made any difference. Hannibals own elepants ran amok through his own lines and routed his own troops.
Sorry, i was mistaken. Not sure what i was thinking but this isn't the reason the battle of Zama was lost.
I do recall reading somewhere that at the time of Zama, even if Hannibal were granted the sacred band cavalry, there would only be 1,000 of them. If that's the case, Hannibals cavalry would still be outnumbered by the Romans, 5,500 to 8,500, 4000 of which were hannibals previously very well experienced Numidians, so that could have gone either way.
Unless, i'm mistaken again! haha.
satalexton
12-27-2008, 09:42
you forgot, the roman cavalry suck, they're nothing more than hillbillies on ponies armed with cattleprods.
Beefy187
12-27-2008, 09:52
Isn't EB itself a giant What If?
Why shouldn't we be allowed to imagine alternatives to historical reality? How dull would we be then?
Theres no point to discuss as there are way too many possibilities. Questioning what ifs are fine. But you can't really expect a answer for it.
Marcus Ulpius
12-27-2008, 12:18
Speculating on too many "what ifs" is indeed fruitless, but some special moments in history can be described as "turning points" which had great influence on the events afterward. I think what I'm going to say now will be highly controversial, but in my opinion, 2-nd Punic War was such a turning point for the history of the Mediterranean.
2nd Punic war could actually go either way, and Carthage had a good chance of winning it, had Hannibal received enough support from home and he himself could be more decisive in landing another blow to Romans after the battle of Cannae. But Rome was fully committed to the war, while Carthage was not. After the war was over, Carthage was in no position to threaten Roman hegemony again. 3rd Punic war and its outcome were inevitable. After 3rd war Rome was an undisputed Mediterranean superpower.
The Roman achievements that followed were natural. Rome was filling a huge power vacuum in the Eastern Mediterranean and waging colonial wars against divided Celts. I'm not trying to diminish Roman achievements which are indeed incredible, but I think their achievements were not of military nature, but of administrative. After all they've created a superpower that successfully (more or less) governed a huge ethnically diverse area for nearly 400 years, although from military point of view, after Carthage they didn't face an equal enemy that could threaten their very existence until the barbarian invasions of the late 3-rd century and onwards.
you forgot, the roman cavalry suck, they're nothing more than hillbillies on ponies armed with cattleprods.
Not the experienced Numidians that they enticed over to their side from Hannibal. They were far from hillbillies on ponies with cattleprods, and there were 4,000 of them.
, although from military point of view, after Carthage they didn't face an equal enemy that could threaten their very existence until the barbarian invasions of the late 3-rd century and onwards.
that is untrue, you are forgetting the parthians, the sassanids, the dacians and the ptolies were all very strong powers, at their peek during roman expansion, though i'm not shure about the ptolies.
Gatalos de Sauromatae
12-27-2008, 16:23
Speculating on too many "what ifs" is indeed fruitless, but some
The Roman achievements that followed were natural. Rome was filling a huge power vacuum in the Eastern Mediterranean and waging colonial wars against divided Celts. I'm not trying to diminish Roman achievements which are indeed incredible, but I think their achievements were not of military nature, but of administrative. After all they've created a superpower that successfully (more or less) governed a huge ethnically diverse area for nearly 400 years, although from military point of view, after Carthage they didn't face an equal enemy that could threaten their very existence until the barbarian invasions of the late 3-rd century and onwards.
IMHO at least this would be true in mediterenean coz Ptolies or Parthia never thrust westward too much to threaten Roman's hegemony there. Moreover, an effective administration is the key to hold the empire together not a military might only.:coffeenews:
Marcus Ulpius
12-27-2008, 18:29
that is untrue, you are forgetting the parthians, the sassanids, the dacians and the ptolies were all very strong powers, at their peek during roman expansion, though i'm not shure about the ptolies.
Well, the Ptolies were not very strong during Roman expansion. Ptolies were even seeking Roman help against Seleucids and after providing such help Romans made sure that the Ptolies would not be able to threaten Roman positions in the region.
At their peak Parthians were not defeated by Romans. Krassus expedition ended in utter failure. Trajan did defeat the Parthians and even conquered their capital, but when Sassanids took place of the Parthians both powers were stuck in a deadlock actually till the Arab conquest. Besides that neither Parthians nor Sassanids had far reaching Western ambitions. It looks Antioch was the limit of their plans of westward expansion. We also should remember that although Ktesiphon was conquered by Trajan, it was abandoned by his immediate successor Hadrian when the overall strategy of the Romans was changed from expanding to defending. It is an open question whether Hadrian thought that Rome can't conquer any new land or he thought there was nothing left that was worth attention of Roman armies?
If you're talking about Dacians, I would also add Mithridates of Pontus, but I think both lacked manpower and resources to pose real threat to Rome.
Did the Romans even have to fight any major battles for Egypt?
Did Parthia not conquer Antioch, Judea and parts of Egypt and Anatolia? Before being pushed back later on.Plus Rome had to fight the Palmyran and Gallic empires..though those could be seen more as civil wars.
It is a pity the Dacians didn't have the man power to stop Trajan despite some good victories...could have stopped the utter genocide of thier people and culture had they been more populus.
Did the Romans even have to fight any major battles for Egypt?
Besides Actium?
if he had maybe advanced on Rome after Cannae
Well on his defense, maybe he did it right, just take a look at these
[LIST]
Saguntum took 8 months to fall (with a small garrison)
-In saguntum they already had many artillery pieces brought from Carthage
Hannibal didn't had any siege equipment after Cannae, by the time he built everything needed, the romans would have recalled the 2 legions from spain and several more soldiers from all italy.
Rome could levie (sp?) at least 2 legions form its citizens (about 10,000 men)
Rome was huge, compared to Saguntum.
Several other turning points of the 2nd punic war, would be the Battle of Ilipa, the battle of Metaurus, the fall of Capua and Tarentum.
If Hannibal had received more reinforcements...
Well on his defense, maybe he did it right, just take a look at these
Saguntum took 8 months to fall (with a small garrison)
In saguntum they already had many artillery pieces brought from Carthage
Hannibal didn't had any siege equipment after Cannae, by the time he built everything needed, the romans would have recalled the 2 legions from spain and several more soldiers from all italy.
Rome could levie (sp?) at least 2 legions form its citizens (about 10,000 men)
Rome was huge, compared to Saguntum.
Added to that was that there were still about 20.000 Roman survivors of the battle of Cannae and another 20.000 or so campaigning in northern Italy (although they would be annihilated pretty soon by rebelling Gauls). And Rome was in the middle of hostile territory, so Hannibal's supply lines would be uncertain (especially with 40.000 Romans in his rear) and he did not have the manpower to properly invest Rome.
The Romans panicked after Cannae, and though that Hannibal's march on the city was imminent. Later Roman historians echoed these fears, but they were unfounded. Barring a miracle, it is unlikely Hannibal could have taken Rome directly after Cannae.
Cambyses
12-28-2008, 05:26
Well, if Rome's various enemies had supported Hannibal as they had promised he would have been in a very strong position. But believing they would have simply replaced the Roman Empire with a Carthaginian one the stayed at home. In hindsight we can all see this was the wrong choice as Rome quickly conquered the lot of them after Carthage sued for peace.
The thing with "what if" questions is where do they end? You have limitless possibilities almost by definition, so my answer to the original question is yes. A new Alexander could have re-united his predecessor's empire. A new Pyrrhus could have burnt Rome to the ground and Carthage too.
icydawgfish
12-28-2008, 07:02
I'm going to slim this down as it appears to have expanded beyond my intentions.
1. By the start date, was there any possibility of either the Ptolemies, the Maks, or the Seleucids gaining the thrones of the other two and reforming Alexander's empire. If so, what would they key points have been.
2. Could Carthage have won the first Punic War, and if so, how would this have affected Rome's fate and Carthage's expansionist policy.
Cute Wolf
12-28-2008, 11:21
If any of these "alternate History" happned, we will never be here. Maybe we are now living in age without internet, because there was no Roman empire, no Barbarian Invasion, no Medieval Kingdoms, no Industrial Revolution, and most of us are still peasants live under the yoke of tyrant Emperors..
Watchman
12-28-2008, 11:32
That's... quite a stretch. Especially as the Migrations had preciously little to do with whether the Roman Empire existed or not, save that it now happened to occupy the western ass-end of Eurasia where the domino effect pushed a fair few groups into.
All the Romance languages would probably have been replaced with variants of Punic, save Romanian, which would probably be a variant of Dacian/Magyar/Slavic.
More importantly, would Christianity have arisen? It's debatable as to whether the Carthaginians would have crucified Jesus (If we presume he existed of course), or even if they would have reached Judea. Also, Christianity may not have taken off in the same way that it did with the Romans, and considering Islam is a direct reaction to the deviation of Christianity from Jewish monotheism, in that the Trinity was designed to appeal to Roman Pagans, we would probably all be sacrificing babies OR praying to Ahura Mazda every Sunday. :laugh4:
1. By the start date, was there any possibility of either the Ptolemies, the Maks, or the Seleucids gaining the thrones of the other two and reforming Alexander's empire. If so, what would they key points have been.
1) I don't think the Ptolemies could have done such a thing. They were constantly plagued with rebellions in Egypt and were thus unable to subjugate other lands.
Makedonia is another question, and I'm unsure on that.
I think that the Seleucid Empire may just have been able to do such a thing. Magnesia was a turning point here. If Antiochos III was able to defeat the Romans at Magnesia, he would have most likely subjugated Hellas afterwards. Then, should he have died (and Antiochus IV would come to the throne), he would have subjugated Egypt, there was nobody to draw any funny circles around him and then they would have been very, very close to reconquering Alexandros' realm.
Maybe abou can tell you more.
I think the other big "what if" question was if Hero of Alexandria's steam engine, or "Aeolipile", had been noticed, and it's practicality been put into practice 1700 years before the Industrial Revolution. The difference in human history it would have made makes my mouth water; a steam powered Roman Empire...
But of course, as Cambyses said, these are merely diversions from real history, but bloody interesting diversions at that.
Another, what if Alexander hadn't died so young?
Tellos Athenaios
12-28-2008, 20:49
It would not have been very likely. People seem to forget that the concept of 'machine-made, mass produced goods/ware' predates the Industrial Revolution and that the major factors which propelled what became known as the "Industrial revolution" do not seem to have been in existance way back then. I mean both the [British] Agricultural and the Scientific Revolution and their direct consequences.
Unless the steam engine accelerated by the development of those concepts, and the wealth of Egypt could easily have fuelled such developments. Coupled with Archimede's steam-powered gun, a steampunk Romani Empire wouldn't have been impossible, and might have repelled the German migrations...
Yum. It makes me hungry thinking about it.
Watchman
12-28-2008, 21:24
The usual period solution to a demand to increase production seems to have been to throw more workers at it, though. Easy access to lots of slaves (or just cheap labour) tends to do that.
Plus, there's the question of fuel. Teh energy issue. Steam engine is worth its weight in scrap metal if you don't have something to burn in it, in practice meaning wood and coal. Neither of which the Mediterranean region was all that blessed with, AFAIK...
Have fun making primitive steam power cost-efficient (which is something of an absolute precondition for it becoming a factor in the economy rather than mere curiosity) in that situation. Heck, I doubt if period metallurgy was up to the task either - do recall that by the time Europeans started dabbling in proto-industrial production techniques around the Late Middle Ages or so (using water power), they had some rather massively more advanced metalworking know-how to "build the tools to build the tools" with.
The usual period solution to a demand to increase production seems to have been to throw more workers at it, though. Easy access to lots of slaves (or just cheap labour) tends to do that.
But there was a limit to the amount of slaves that could be employed, as they required food, they were expensive, and most importantly, they needed guarding. With a steam engine, you don't have that third problem, something which ancient nobles might have seen.
Plus, there's the question of fuel. Teh energy issue. Steam engine is worth its weight in scrap metal if you don't have something to burn in it, in practice meaning wood and coal. Neither of which the Mediterranean region was all that blessed with, AFAIK...
Indeed, but Gaul had forests, Britannia had coal, and Germania had lots of forest.
Have fun making primitive steam power cost-efficient (which is something of an absolute precondition for it becoming a factor in the economy rather than mere curiosity) in that situation.
It depends on the location. Arabia? Of course not. Germania? You're surrounded by fuel.
Heck, I doubt if period metallurgy was up to the task either - do recall that by the time Europeans started dabbling in proto-industrial production techniques around the Late Middle Ages or so (using water power), they had some rather massively more advanced metalworking know-how to "build the tools to build the tools" with.
I've been thinking about it, and I think that would have proved to be the biggest obstacle. It depends on the nature of the engine, but I don't we'd have seen massive Romani liners/steam tanks in the first century or two. However, if people had realised the potential behind steam power, they might have been inspired to experiment with metallurgy techniques, and certainly, had the Empire as a whole realised that, then I think technology could have advanced quite quickly.
Tellos Athenaios
12-28-2008, 22:56
Yeah, by the time the Industrial Revolution really took off -- 2nd-3rd quarter of the 19th century onwards and mind you: in Brittain it started 3rd-4th quarter of the 18th century, that's a heck of a lot earlier than say most areas without significant coal mines which tended not to follow suit until roughly one century later -- there was a lot more indepth theoretical, practical and applied knowledge of Physics too. Plus, in order to make reasonably powerful steam engines you required a high grade steel which in turn requires the use of cokes. 'Natural' cokes (very high quality coal) is relatively rare (lower quality being more common).
Think Newton and Boyle.
Unless the steam engine accelerated by the development of those concepts,
Ehrm: exactly what part of:
(a) The increased knowledge in Science in general and Physics in particular;
(b) The fact that a large number of people were reduced to such straits they readily accepted jobs in what can only be described as some of the worst workplace environments ever to be created ... ?
and the wealth of Egypt could easily have fuelled such developments. Coupled with Archimede's steam-powered gun, a steampunk Romani Empire wouldn't have been impossible, and might have repelled the German migrations...
Yum. It makes me hungry thinking about it.
Watchman
12-29-2008, 00:03
But there was a limit to the amount of slaves that could be employed, as they required food, they were expensive, and most importantly, they needed guarding. With a steam engine, you don't have that third problem, something which ancient nobles might have seen....except all that and then some applies to the people who run the machines as well. Not only do you still need the blue-collar grunts to do the heavy lifting; you also have the engineers, technicians and whatever who keep the gadgets operational - and, not being exactly easy to replace, the latter can readily ask for some pretty salty wages and perks indeed...
Indeed, but Gaul had forests, Britannia had coal, and Germania had lots of forest.
---
It depends on the location. Arabia? Of course not. Germania? You're surrounded by fuel.And all those are in the periphery insofar as the Med - the true heartland of the Classical civilisations - is concerned; Germany indeed was pretty much a no-go anyway, as it couldn't even produce enough of a consumables surplus to allow the Romans to permanently garrison an army there (and, hence, have a realistic shot at conquering it).
Wanna start adding the shipping costs to the fuel bill ? That's not going to make it any more attractive to thinkers in the Mediterranean metropolises, all the more so as rather expensively imported wood was already direly needed for God knows how many other things...
I've been thinking about it, and I think that would have proved to be the biggest obstacle. It depends on the nature of the engine, but I don't we'd have seen massive Romani liners/steam tanks in the first century or two. However, if people had realised the potential behind steam power, they might have been inspired to experiment with metallurgy techniques, and certainly, had the Empire as a whole realised that, then I think technology could have advanced quite quickly.Uh-huh. What you're describing is more or less the "scientific principle" paradigm of problem-solving. Too bad it doesn't actually work that neatly IRL, and moreover lay well over a millenia in the future during the heydays of Rome...
We're not talking about Civilization here; people didn't just sit down and go "hey we need better metallurgy, let's invent it - oughta take a century or two"; plus, what do you think the High-Late Medieval breakthroughs in metal reduction techniques, furnace construction, actual smithwork etc. were the product of if not millenia of continuous trial-and-error developement and hands-on experimentation ? And that was a long stretch of busy centuries indeed from where the Romans stood, with no small amount of helpful imported influences to boot which AFAIK were yet to be accessible in Antiquity.
...except all that and then some applies to the people who run the machines as well. Not only do you still need the blue-collar grunts to do the heavy lifting; you also have the engineers, technicians and whatever who keep the gadgets operational - and, not being exactly easy to replace, the latter can readily ask for some pretty salty wages and perks indeed...
Why get 100 slaves to do the work when you can have 5 machines running, with two slaves for each to set the things up, and two engineers to keep them going. (That's just a hypothesised situation btw) Even if the engineers demanded relatively high wages, it would still be cheaper than feeding 100 slaves, and was certainly cheaper than guarding them. And as people realise that being an engineer is profitable, more people would become engineers, driving the price for engineers down.
I'll have a shot at answering the rest tomorrow.
artavazd
12-29-2008, 01:42
If any of these "alternate History" happned, we will never be here. Maybe we are now living in age without internet, because there was no Roman empire, no Barbarian Invasion, no Medieval Kingdoms, no Industrial Revolution, and most of us are still peasants live under the yoke of tyrant Emperors..
What makes you think that is not the case today? Titles and roles have changed, but the few still rule the many.
If the hellenistic world was united, probably by the Seleucids if things had went Atiochus III and IV's ways, then there may well have been a much earlier industrial revolution or atleast a boom in scientific thought..eg. Archimedes would not have been killed, no christianity to get in the way of general learning and science, no islamic conquests as no little known merchant would have fused jewish and christian teachings with some of his own ideas to make a religion in an arabian back water.
Remember Zalmoxis was compared to Moses and Zoroaster by greeks so there may have been a world religion worshipping Zalmoxis as the idea of an immortal soul would be a catchy one and ofc the worship of other gods in dacia probably would have died out leading to a monotheistic religion. The Romans wouldn't have wiped out the Dacians and prevented the spread of zalmoxism as they would probably not be able to challenge a united hellenistic empire.
All my own conjecture ofc.
Marcus Ulpius
12-29-2008, 21:04
There are some theories saying that civilizations (and here we're starting to discuss "what ifs" of classical civilization) are like living organisms. They are born, they grow and expand, creating the new world order. Then they get older and settle down, trying to protect what they have. After that there's a period of decline when they can't protect themselves and are consumed either militarily or by assimilation by younger, more active civilization.
According to those theories, the decline of the classical world was inevitable.
Tellos Athenaios
12-29-2008, 21:19
Why get 100 slaves to do the work when you can have 5 machines running, with two slaves for each to set the things up, and two engineers to keep them going.
(That's just a hypothesised situation btw) Even if the engineers demanded relatively high wages, it would still be cheaper than feeding 100 slaves, and was certainly cheaper than guarding them. And as people realise that being an engineer is profitable, more people would become engineers, driving the price for engineers down.
Actually, no: not really. You apply a rationale from the 20th century AD (even in the 19th century it tended to be cheap [enough] to just hire another bunch of low-wage low-skill workers; plus: even though the fact that machines could in theory beat the slave force in cost-effectiveness that didn't convince the slave-owning estate-holders of the Southern USA or Suriname too readily either) to an area in which getting this other bunch of workforce could be as easy as a trip to the local market?
Mind you: the initial success of the Industrial Revolution was due to demands for the output of the 'heavy' industries -- AFAIK no such large scale demand existed in the 3rd century B.C.
Watchman
12-29-2008, 23:13
Plus there's the initial rather substantial outlay for the machinery and the skilled workers to look after them; the running expenses of spare parts etc.; the diverse problems of fuel logistics, as the stuff has to be shipped in from God knows where at whatever extortionary expense the guys who own the source and the transportation chain manage to wring out - plus the vulnerability of that supply chain, whereas slaves were readily available from numerous sources. Etc.
Fact of the matter is, established elite groups deriving major income from the "latifundia" pattern of economy can generally keep improving their profits for quite a while just by adding more slaves, serfs, ill-paid peons or whatever and squeezing and controlling them harder, and also tend to be rather hostile to anything that might endanger their lucrative position. This seems to have been true for Rome; it certainly was for the Early Modern "new feudalism" that took root in Eastern and Central Europe and much of the Mediterranean zone and quite possibly screwed them six ways to Sunday (with repercussions lasting to this day); as it was for the "Cotton South" of the US, the sugar plantations etc. of Latin America...
Also, KozaK ? Er, no. Not really. You're making some pretty seriously sweeping and unfounded assumptions there.
kekailoa
12-29-2008, 23:55
It seems that a lot of hypotheses that are being made here about the possibilities of Carthaginian expansion (plus Seleucid or Hellenic) are that these civilizations would follow that exact plan of the Roman Empire.
I think that if Rome had lost the 1st Punic War, there would have been almost no resemblance of the rest of history to the reality.
One little thing like that would have changed the world beyond recognition. Our society would be an entirely different beast and I think comparing it to today's society is completely unfounded. Saying we would be speaking a Punic-based language is slightly ridiculous because we have no idea of what would happened? Who's to say the Gauls couldn't have continued their trend of urbanization and become a united Gallic state? Who's to say that Carthage would have decided on imperial ambitions? Many of these small empires that existed during the time of Rome were a direct result of Roman ambition and influence. They were the example for the rest of the world. Without Rome, what would have happened? Another millennium of warring tribal confederations and city-states?
The Seleucid Empire was an antiquated over-large behemoth on verge of splintering while Carthage was a powerful city sate who dominated their region in a manner entirely different than Rome: commerce.
It's nigh impossible to say what would have happened. We can make guesses but to base these guesses on the actions of an entirely unique new civilization that was so different from the rest of the world seems to be somewhat unwise.
antisocialmunky
12-30-2008, 01:49
In the end, I think we would be equally disappointed in the out come and be wondering what other cool stuff could have happened. Honestly, if the multiple dimension interpretation of QMech is right, in a parallel dimension, there are Muslim versions of most of us wondering what would have happened if Martel won.
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads7/Modern_legionary1.jpg
Watchman
12-30-2008, 01:56
*wonders what in the world are you going to need a big sword for when lugging around an automatic firearm*
*wonders if those Shoulders O' Doom aren't really bad to brace the rifle butt against*
*has a thing against artists who go for "cool shit" without sparing a thought to functionality*
...
:sweatdrop:
Also, KozaK ? Er, no. Not really. You're making some pretty seriously sweeping and unfounded assumptions there.
Remember possibilities are endless, everything brought up in a "what if?" is unfounded.
I'll agree with the Pirate-Global warming correlation FSM for the win
Watchman
12-30-2008, 02:25
Well, yeah. But there's also the consideration whether a scenario is actually credible or not, based on what is known of the context and the relevant dynamics.
And, well, actually getting your basic facts right. *coughreligionscough*
Aemilius Paulus
12-30-2008, 02:58
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads7/Modern_legionary1.jpg
Hey!! That picture is in my profile album! I claim copyright infringement!!
Anyway, does anyone read Harry Turtledove here? He is often called the "Master of Alternative History" and he also happens to be my favourite author, as alternative history is my favorite fiction genre, with sci-fi and regular historical fiction trailing behind.
In the end, I think we would be equally disappointed in the out come and be wondering what other cool stuff could have happened. Honestly, if the multiple dimension interpretation of QMech is right, in a parallel dimension, there are Muslim versions of most of us wondering what would have happened if Martel won.
Actually if Asimov's short stories about the multiverse are correct, there's a version of me wondering what life would have been like if I had eaten that sandwich earlier instead of the burrito.
antisocialmunky
12-30-2008, 05:48
One of them probably got food poinsoning and died from undercooked soft shelled turtle too.
Minister of Fear
12-30-2008, 06:57
As I'm playing Hayasdan at the moment, I'd would like to have seen a late elite heavy infantry unit and possibly a late elite cataphract unit equal to that of the Seleukids/ Pahlavans for the successful completion of the Orontid Empire Reforms. Hypothetical? Yes. But considering the reform process that is a part of this campaign, I wouldn't have thought this was unrealistic.
Ibn-Khaldun
12-30-2008, 11:12
Why get 100 slaves to do the work when you can have 5 machines running, with two slaves for each to set the things up, and two engineers to keep them going. (That's just a hypothesised situation btw) Even if the engineers demanded relatively high wages, it would still be cheaper than feeding 100 slaves, and was certainly cheaper than guarding them. And as people realise that being an engineer is profitable, more people would become engineers, driving the price for engineers down.
You forget that slaves can not choose a job for themselves! Also, you forget that if those 10 men could work with those machines then 90 slaves will just stay idle and idle slaves might start thinking about freedom. But slaves who think about freedom are dangerous. So, if I would be given the choice back then I would use 100 slaves and make sure they work and don't have time to think rather than using 5 machines and let those slaves run freely around.
Do you understand what kind of social problems this could've caused??? Have you thought what they would've eaten, where they would've lived and so on?? Steam engines back then would've destroyed most of the empires.
Alright, I concede, the chances of a Roman Insutrial Revolution were minimal at best, although I do believe that with sufficient investment, scientific genius, and a lot of luck, a smaller scale one would have been possible. However, I am certain that steam could have been used on a smaller scale, e.g. to power small irrigation systems, conveyor belts etc, had more notice been taken to Hero's invention.
Also, although that picture of the Roman with the assault rifle is awfully cool, why does he have a thin iron helmet, when he has modern firearms?
artavazd
12-30-2008, 21:42
As I'm playing Hayasdan at the moment, I'd would like to have seen a late elite heavy infantry unit and possibly a late elite cataphract unit equal to that of the Seleukids/ Pahlavans for the successful completion of the Orontid Empire Reforms. Hypothetical? Yes. But considering the reform process that is a part of this campaign, I wouldn't have thought this was unrealistic.
well there is the Aznvakan Tiknapah (Noble Bodyguards) which are a heavy infantry unit which uses a longsword that is highly leathal, also you have the Late Bodyguad Unit which is on par with the late Parthian, and Bactrian cataphracts.
Aemilius Paulus
12-30-2008, 21:58
Also, although that picture of the Roman with the assault rifle is awfully cool, why does he have a thin iron helmet, when he has modern firearms?
Its purely to look "cool". And you gotta admit, it does look cool. Without the armour, gladius and helmet, the coolness would diminish greatly. Not to mention, most nations still use iron (well steel, but whatever - close enough) helmets. A helmet will never stop a bullet, unless it is a ricochet or it has been flying for already a very long distance. even then the chances are rather slim. Helmets are made to stop shrapnel, and they are quite effective in this role, as well as exceedingly useful. Modern combat helmets were developed in WWI, where 50 or even more % of the casualties were a result of injuries in the head, almost always shrapnel. (I found this data in John Keegan's WWI - so I am not just making it up) That was of course due to the nature of warfare exemplified by trenches and perpetual heavy artillery bombardments. So helmets were practically invaluable to soldiers. Not only that, but headshots are pretty rare.
Oh, and the legionary's firearm is actually more akin to the German WWII Maschinengewehr 42 (MG-42) light machine gun: http://tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:AwQ58pPF2CxwHM:http://lib.irismedia.org/sait/guns/machine/mg42c.jpghttp://www.perdix.co.uk/machine%20guns%20gallery/images/MG%2042%20_%2053_jpg.jpghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/MG42-1.jpg/300px-MG42-1.jpg
Hmm, I thought I recognised that gun. And yeah, I've got that book (I think), or at least one similar to it. It's really interesting.
antisocialmunky
12-31-2008, 00:36
That's the one that gets all that fan service from Jin Roh if I'm not mistaken.
Watchman
12-31-2008, 01:17
Mind you, a modernised version is still in use by at least the Italian military. MG3 it's called, IIRC.
Well, good stuff is good stuff.
antisocialmunky
12-31-2008, 01:21
http://www.santaquiteria.net/wp-content/fgallery/200x/Jin-Roh.jpg
You forget that slaves can not choose a job for themselves! Also, you forget that if those 10 men could work with those machines then 90 slaves will just stay idle and idle slaves might start thinking about freedom. But slaves who think about freedom are dangerous. So, if I would be given the choice back then I would use 100 slaves and make sure they work and don't have time to think rather than using 5 machines and let those slaves run freely around.
Do you understand what kind of social problems this could've caused??? Have you thought what they would've eaten, where they would've lived and so on?? Steam engines back then would've destroyed most of the empires.
I never said anything about slaves, you must have mixed up names when quoting
a completely inoffensive name
12-31-2008, 05:51
The MG42 is one the best guns to have when cutting down Nazi Zombies with 3 other friends in Call of Duty: World at War.
Aemilius Paulus
12-31-2008, 07:17
Maybe a bit more on topic? I am not addressing you, ACIN, so do not get all fired up. Just a note to future posters. Once again, I apologize for being such an ass.
a completely inoffensive name
12-31-2008, 07:25
I am not addressing you, ACIN, so do not get all fired up.
I won't, I have been just ignoring your spam "anti-spam" posts.
Aemilius Paulus
12-31-2008, 08:13
I won't, I have been just ignoring your spam "anti-spam" posts.
I am aware that my anti-spam posts are not much better than spam itself, yet I would not like to see this thread veer off further into ambiguity and general lack of staying on track. That would lead to something we are are painfully aware of. I regret that the part of my post about the type of firearm carried by the legionary caused so much bedlam. Your post about WaW did not contribute much to the restoration of order either. Neither did your reply to my request. Neither did my reply that I am now typing, but I would rather not leave your post unadressed.
I may have misunderstood your reply. Thank you for agreeing to stay on topic nevertheless. PM or Visitor Message me if you wish to continue this any further. Or to discuss WaW :)
Ibn-Khaldun
12-31-2008, 10:56
I never said anything about slaves, you must have mixed up names when quoting
Yes, you are right. I apologize for that. It was Subotan who I quoted.
Does anyone disagree with my point, that the aelophile could in theory have started a smaller scale Industrial Revolution (More like an Industrial Rebellion :laugh4:), that could have been used to power small irrigation systems, and small pulleys?
I agree, and i think that if rome hadn't risen the greeks would have recognised the possibilities of steam, paticularly in Ptolemaic egypt eg. Abdraxus' machines of alexandria, and don't forget that greeks made the Antikytera machanism (a quite accurate mechanical calender/astonomical thinger-ma-jig, i think but i can't really remember)...
infact i think the theory is that it was a roman collecter of greekish things that it was destined for before it ended up on the sea bed..imagine if it was a wealthy well connected roman who saw the potential of mechanical constructs..
Tellos Athenaios
12-31-2008, 15:34
Does anyone disagree with my point, that the aelophile could in theory have started a smaller scale Industrial Revolution (More like an Industrial Rebellion :laugh4:), that could have been used to power small irrigation systems, and small pulleys?
Yes, Watchman and me at least. Because the world of 3rd century BC didn't resemble the frame in which a picture of the Industrial Revolution would unfold.
Ibn-Khaldun
12-31-2008, 15:46
You can count me too because of the same reasons.
antisocialmunky
12-31-2008, 15:57
IMHO The people most likely to have achieved an pre-medieval industrial revolution were China or India. However, it never happened there because the economy and the thought systems were not in place. India was too divided and reliant on agriculture and China was to happy with what it already could do with its massive man power. It is very strange that the cultural backwater of Medieval Europe managed so quickly to jump from Dark Ages->Renaisance->Enlightenment->Industrial Revolution and become the technological leaders of the world...
The Fuzz
12-31-2008, 17:40
I agree, and i think that if rome hadn't risen the greeks would have recognised the possibilities of steam, paticularly in Ptolemaic egypt eg. Abdraxus' machines of alexandria
Funnily enough, I picked up a book for some light reading (The Hellenistic Age by Peter Green), and he puts in a small claim that the Greeks ingnored - and the bit on technological advances culminates with "Any device that left servile labor force with spare energy was seen as a direct stimulus to revolution."
That's a pretty interesting idea, but it's just glanced over here. I bet there's been a thesis or two on the idea of technological advance tied to fear of revolts...would be pretty interesting to read, but I'd reluctant to take Green's statement at face value until I read more. Very intriguing all the same though.
Funnily enough, I picked up a book for some light reading (The Hellenistic Age by Peter Green), and he puts in a small claim that the Greeks ingnored - and the bit on technological advances culminates with "Any device that left servile labor force with spare energy was seen as a direct stimulus to revolution."
That's a pretty interesting idea, but it's just glanced over here. I bet there's been a thesis or two on the idea of technological advance tied to fear of revolts...would be pretty interesting to read, but I'd reluctant to take Green's statement at face value until I read more. Very intriguing all the same though.
That reminds me that i read somewhere that, the archimedes screw was demonstrated to and suggested to help Vespasian rebuild Rome i think, bt he declined saying something along the lines of "How will the people be fed?" as in how will they earn money and what not if a machine can do their jobs faster and in less numbers.
Yes, Watchman and me at least. Because the world of 3rd century BC didn't resemble the frame in which a picture of the Industrial Revolution would unfold.
I also agree with you, for the reasons cited.
Mediolanicus
12-31-2008, 20:19
I agree, and i think that if rome hadn't risen the greeks would have recognised the possibilities of steam, paticularly in Ptolemaic egypt eg. Abdraxus' machines of alexandria
The greatest problem was that their metal working skills were inadequate to produce machine suitable for useful steampower. Europe only reached that level in the late medieval ages.
Which makes me wonder why China didn't thought of steam power, since they mastered those advanced metalworking skills since the 1st century BC - or was it 6th century AD? Well, at least way earlier than Europe...
Watchman
12-31-2008, 21:47
My pet theory is it was the lack of constant cutthroat competition. Europe, after all, had a zillion ambitious little jerks with swords stck on an ultimately rather small geographical area, all busily trying to take over everyone else and none ever even remotely capable of doing it - so everyone tried to figure out some way to get and edge over the other guy.
The kind of mental room of maneuver the constant squabbling between the Church and the temporal princes created probably didn't hurt either.
Er, and Mediolanicus ? You're aware that the Chinese abandoned bronze for iron quite a lot later than the western Eurasians, right ? Although I'll give you they were apparently able to succesfully "port over" a lot of the really swank know-how they'd developed with bronze quite fast.
antisocialmunky
12-31-2008, 23:10
That probably helped contribute to it. I read somewhere a while agot that India might have been able to industrialize if Europeans didn't take it over.
That, the opportunities created by the black death, and the riches that the great families of the Italian States like Venice had to invest in weapons and the arts.
Ibn-Khaldun
01-01-2009, 01:53
That probably helped contribute to it. I read somewhere a while agot that India might have been able to industrialize if Europeans didn't take it over.
That, the opportunities created by the black death, and the riches that the great families of the Italian States like Venice had to invest in weapons and the arts.
You are talking about Medieval timeperiod and not the EB timeperiod here. The fact is that in the EB timeperiod(3rd Century BC - 1st Century AD) slaves were too common and too widely used so that this "industrialized revolution" to take place.
Like KozaK13 said, how will all those slaves (who were not needed anymore because of the machines) earn money? And where will they live? What will they eat?
Sooner or later all those people would've just taken weapons and overthrown their 'former' masters.
a completely inoffensive name
01-01-2009, 03:09
They could have just put in the slaves into the army and use them as cheap fodder to soften up enemy forces before moving in with the trained troops. Just a thought, don't flame me.
antisocialmunky
01-01-2009, 04:07
Arm slaves and put them in between people they totally hate and are scared of and people who want to kill the people they totally hate?
Maybe if you had a whole lot of big scary dudes.
a completely inoffensive name
01-01-2009, 04:13
If the slaves are under the Roman (or whoever we are talking about) banner I don't think the enemy army would have given a second thought, "hey these look like slaves, lets turn them for us". Just like anybody forced into the army into modern day times, they know the enemy would have killed them as well, so might as well fight for my master and hope to survive the battle.
antisocialmunky
01-01-2009, 04:18
All I'm saying is that there are some annoying little side effects...
Unless they are something like those Mamluks. I mean, if you just have some armed slaves, they aren't going to be particularly useful unless its is 1.0 where they are armed with BFG 9K knives. If you're going to go the slave route, then you might as well get good slaves that do it for a living rather than are just thrown into it.
I guess it wouldn't be so bad if you replaced 'slaves' with poor people who's lives suck whether they live or die.. that's like psiloi or whatever.
a completely inoffensive name
01-01-2009, 04:24
Well I was throwing this out only as solution to the problem of "what to do with all these slaves we don't need anymore due to all these machines". It wouldn't be practical to make slaves a contingent of your army, but if we are just looking for a way to get rid of all this unwanted man power, I can't find a more efficient way then dumping them in the army. If they desert, then at least they spread out, hide and try to live the rest of their lives in peace, not forming any pesky rebellions against the Senate.
antisocialmunky
01-01-2009, 04:26
You could send them off to horrible places to find resources to fuel your machines. Load them on a boat and send them off.
a completely inoffensive name
01-01-2009, 04:31
I can see using them as miners/resource gatherers for the machines, the boat one just seems wasteful and too costly considering there are a lot of slaves.
antisocialmunky
01-01-2009, 04:32
Prisoners worked pretty good with Australia, I don't see how slaves would work any less good.
a completely inoffensive name
01-01-2009, 09:22
Oh, so when you say "ship them off" you mean ship them to settle somewhere else? Or in other words essentially free them in a distant land where they can't hurt you?
Ibn-Khaldun
01-01-2009, 12:56
Why would you send them to mines if you have machines that can do their work a lot faster??
Also, it would be pretty foolish to give weapons to people who just were slaves. It's like "Hey! Here are some weapons for you. Please come and kill us and take our money!" Also, those in power need to arm those former slaves and give them food and so on while there is no battles to fight. AND battles were not that common. Perhaps 1 in a month if you were in a really bloody war with someone and you have to remember that people then fought only in summer/warmer months.
a completely inoffensive name
01-01-2009, 13:28
Machines cant do all the mining. People still operate the machines that mine to this day.
This is a badass debate. :2thumbsup:
Ibn-Khaldun
01-01-2009, 15:04
Machines cant do all the mining. People still operate the machines that mine to this day.
Yes, but you don't need thousands of people to operate them.
antisocialmunky
01-01-2009, 15:49
I think that in most places, it still takes a lot of people to actually do the mining especially if its subterranian
:-\
Honestly, this is a pointless conversation since people usually won't develop the new infrastructure for things like machinery if there are pre-existing methods of doing the same thing such as massive man power. For example, in China it is still much cheaper to hire a bunch of rural peasants to do construction rather than bring in a bulldozer. You can also be a bastard and not pay your hires while you have to maintain your bulldozer... which also happens in China.
Ibn-Khaldun
01-01-2009, 15:54
...people usually won't develop the new infrastructure for things like machinery if there are pre-existing methods of doing the same thing such as massive man power...
I agree with that completely.
HunGeneral
01-01-2009, 17:19
I agree on that too:yes:
Many great inventions like Herons "Steam-Machines" were simply not made because it was cheaper to use some slaves than use machines instead.
I also read somewhere that the Greeks for exampel didn't use or make any "over-advanced machines" because they believed that true science is the knowledge you don't use to make a gain or which doens't necessery have a practical use:book:
I might be wrong however...
Remember I said small scale, and I meant small scale, like small pulleys, small irrigation systems etc.
I don't anyone would diagree with me that the idea of a steam powered Arche Seleukeia would be one of the coolest things ever :D (From our point of view, of course)
Ibn-Khaldun
01-01-2009, 19:33
This industrialization would've been possible only IF the rulers would've had a detailed plan on what to do with the slaves. perhaps giving them some rights and over time they would've been integrated into the state.
But, like people have said here before, it's much easier to use slaves than machines.
I nominate one of us to travel back in time and see all those reforms through, then. Preferably someone who isn't too old and doesn't mind spending the rest of his life 2000 years before his parents were born.
I nominate Maion, considering he can actually speak the bloody language.
Tellos Athenaios
01-02-2009, 01:11
I nominate Maion, considering he can actually speak the bloody language.
I don't think he, or any of us modern beings for that matter, can. For starters Greek has changed quite a bit over time -- beginning with such simple observations as how to pronounce things properly (which can be more or less learned but will leave a rather odd mark), continuing with the fact that modern Greek has been drastically simplified/altered where diclension and conjugation is concerned, the loss of most diacrictics.. to entirely different idiom. No kidding: if he said "Well I'm off to the market" chances are he uses an entirely different verb or failing that the wrong particle (having seen a couple of modern Greek variants to the theme of going to Rome -- i.e. Athens). And then we haven't ventured into the murky waters of obscure dialects, colloquial language (it's one thing to give an RP-100%-pass speech, everyday-language is quite another) and trade/jargon/slang.
It's a bit like trying to speak English with a radomly picked Italian police officer in the middle of Rome -- you are *very* lucky if you find one that actually understands you. (The people who try to sell you stuff are by comparison remarkably proficient, though.)
Also, could Carthage have won the first Punic War and if so, how would this have impacted future relations with Rome?
Long story short if the Carthaginian polilitcians would have been 100 procent behind Hamiclar Barca (1st punic war) and later on his son Hannibal (2nd Punic war) Rome would have been destoyed. As Hanno was more to blame than Rome for the fall off Carthage, In my opinion.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.