Successor State + Carthage 'What If?' Question

[Watchman]

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.

[Subotan]

...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]

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.

[KozaK13]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Watchman]

*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*
...

[KozaK13]

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]

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]

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.

[Yyrkoon]

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]

One of them probably got food poinsoning and died from undercooked soft shelled turtle too.

[Minister of Fear]

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]

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.

[Subotan]

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]

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]

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:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Subotan]

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]

That's the one that gets all that fan service from Jin Roh if I'm not mistaken.

[Watchman]

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]

[KozaK13]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.