romans conquering inca citadel

Would the romans conquer the inca citadel high up in the mountains with all the american indian tribes defending it (aztec, maya, inca, mohawk, apache, ect.)?

no gunpowder on this poll.

Thanks!

The only question  is would the Roman supply line have held up (and thats a v big question), but if it had then as Brad says, no contest.

 i guess the entire red indian civilaization can't hold back the romans even the triple zigzag walls of the sacsahuaman citadel. 

Originally posted by pinguin Very naive...   (1) the "red civilization" crashed dumb Vikings in North America, without forgetting Inuits did the same in Greenland . Brave Norse that devasted Europe were an easy target against the "reds".   (2) Romans were crashed by Germans, barbarian relatives of Norses . So, by transitivity....   (3) Spaniards were defeated several times by Natives America in Austral South America.

Now that's just silly. If I use that logic, then the Germans defeated the Romans. However, in North Africa and New Guinea, the Australians beat the Germans. Therefore, Australians are better at war than Romans. See how silly that is.

(4) Custer was converted in hot dog (he was a dog to begin with) by the great Crazy Horse (monument to his memory, the biggest in the New World)

Which proves nothing about how a Roman army would fare against an Inca citadel.

(5) Putting together in the same side aztecs, mayas, incas, mohawks and apaches is like to put together, in the old world, and army composed of Zulues, Garamantes, Mongols, Norses and Indonesians... pretty silly I would say.

You have a point about them all being different to Roman weaponry and equipment. But all Amerindian nations still had weaponry and equipment which was inferior to the Romans. And this is without even mentioning the Roman edge in discipline, training, chain of command etc.

(6) Romans never fought at 4.000 meters of altitude... better people than them have died in the upper andes trying to walk.

No, but in Armenia there were taking fortresses from the Persians at over 2,000 metres in altitude. The Persians were also better equipped than the Amerindians.

(7) Incas used metalic weapons, not obsidiane like was affirmed above.

Yes, copper weapons, which were inferior to Roman steel in strength, vastly inferior. If a copper sword and an iron sword hit eachother, the iron sword cuts the copper sword into two.

(8) Curare was enough to kill dumb Romans in mass.

Then we should mention the even more effective Roman methods of killing - the versatile gladius, powerful ballistae and catapults, testudo formations, cunningly designed pila etc.

Originally posted by pinguin   Now, I just imagine Romans bringing theirs machineries rolling in the narrow inca trail from the coasts up to 5.000 meter of altitude Poor Romans....

In fact, this sounds like a rather Roman thing to do. Something of pure innovative genius - it's what they were best at.

(2) Romans were crashed by Germans, barbarian relatives of Norses . So, by transitivity....

I think we underestimate the warfare of native Americans, having the perception of the Spanish army which beat them easily in some battles ,unfairly since their beginning, don't you think?

Originally posted by Knights ...In fact, this sounds like a rather Roman thing to do. Something of pure innovative genius - it's what they were best at.

Adalwolf it has been mentioned above that the Incan army did not use Obsidian. they used Copper.

Originally posted by pinguin Very naive...   (1) the "red civilization" crashed dumb Vikings in North America, without forgetting Inuits did the same in Greenland . Brave Norse that devasted Europe were an easy target against the "reds".   (2) Romans were crashed by Germans, barbarian relatives of Norses . So, by transitivity....   (3) Spaniards were defeated several times by Natives America in Austral South America.   (4) Custer was converted in hot dog (he was a dog to begin with) by the great Crazy Horse (monument to his memory, the biggest in the New World)

Using your "logic" pinguin I could say:

1.Romans defeated and conquered present day Spain and Portugal.

2. Spain conquered the Incan Empire.

Therefore Romans will beat the Incan Empire.

Or if you want one even closer to your "logic":

1. Rome conquers England.

2. England unites British Isles.

3. Britain conquers the much of modern USA, the rest is conquered by Spain and France, both also conquered by Rome.

4. USA, Canada and the UK on winning side in world wars one and two.

Therefore not only would Rome defeat Germany in the end but the modern US, Canadian and United Kingdom armies combined could not hope to defeat the Romans

Originally posted by pinguin Originally posted by Knights ...In fact, this sounds like a rather Roman thing to do. Something of pure innovative genius - it's what they were best at.   Innovative genious? ha! those were greeks, not romans

The Ancient Greeks were indeed ingenious but the Romans were no less so, building on the Greek legacy in regards to warfare and sieges I would argue they were more innovative as they were more practical and far more ready to adopt ideas from others including and perhaps especially their enemies(generalisation).

The Romans were perhaps the best engineers of their age (debatable) and were really stubborn.....really, really stubborn. A great example of this is the siege of Masada where the Sicarii thought they were safe thanks to thier fortress (with ample water and food supplies) bieng located on a platea on top of a mountain with sheer sides and only one very thin path up( too thin for siege engines). However the Roman army which was far from large made a ramp out of one of the mountains side's in order to get thier siege engines to the fortress walls......If the Romans wanted to take your city/fortress mountains typicaly would only buy you time (yet another sweeping generalisation brought to you by Praetor).

This is not to say that the Incan's were not an impressive civilisation, they performed remarkably well in a harsh environment. They were great Empire builders and administraters, practical engineers whose stone masonry was second to none and had an incredibly efficient and surprisingly caring system of labour distribution. Indeed there are many similarities between the two state's, one could even consider the Incans as the Romans of the precolumbian new world.

Regards, Praetor.

OK pinguin, now i know who was the only one to vote the option NO