romans conquering inca citadel

Message Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic

Originally posted by pinguin

I just said that you can't just predict a victory of Romans on Incas because "theory" tell us they were better equiped...The recent experiences of the U.S. in Vietnam, and the U.S.S.R. in Afganistan shows clearly that a "primitive" people willing to fight can put on a good combat, even win.

Of course victory is not certain but we can deduce the odds and assuming the Romans were not ridicolously outnumbered I consider it quite likely that they will prevail and take Cusco. Guerrilla warfare would be the most viable option available to the incans if the Roman force is significant however they did not adopt this until too late with the Spanish. Furthermore the Romans were quite capable of winning Guerrilla wars as evidenced by thier conquest of Iberia, the Jugurthine war and the Jewish revolts among other instances. However Guerrilla warfare is usually fueled by popular hatred and I believe the Romans would treat the locals much better then the Spaniards. besides this is about one siege, not a war.

Originally posted by pinguin

Besides, in a very twisted sense, Romans indeed conquered the Americas. Don't forget that Hispania, Lusitania. Gaul and Britain were Roman provinces.... However, the armies of the 16 and 17th century were a lot better equiped than the Romans, I believe: horses, steel, canons, etc. and gallions and mules to carry heavy loads.

I mentioned that Spain, Portugal and england (not all of Britain, almost but not all) were part of the Roman empire and made the twisted implication that the Romans conquered America in my last post why do you feel the need to point out to me what I just pointed out to you?

The technological difference between the Spaniards and the Romans is of significance however perhaps of exaggerated significance as the firearms and cannons of the day were rather inaccurate, slow to load and unreliable etc. The Romans would require a larger force by a significant degree in all likelihood though.

Originally posted by pinguin

Now, when the conquistadors took over the Americas they did with a varying degree of luck. Large parts of the Americas were conquered only in the 19th century with the help of modern technology, repetition rifles and machine guns. For instance, half the U.S., Patagonia and the Amazon were only open in those times!

But Cusco was conquered far before the 19th century as was most of the Incan empire.

Originally posted by pinguin

In the case of the conquest of Mexico and Peru, a serious study shows it was impossible without the help of local natives that sided with the Europeans. It was more a diplomatic manouver than a military. Europeans were lucky enough the central valley of Mexico was dominated by the Aztecs using terror, and that Peru was in the middle of a Civil War....

Agreed the Europeans did seem to arrive at opportune moments and take advantage of them. I see no reason however why the Romans can not similarly use natives in thier conquests in fact I consider it very likely as the Romans got many of their specialist troops from local allies or non-citizen subjects. If this is not possible for some reason the Romans may need a larger army (not larger then the Inca one but larger then the one required if they could gain allies amongst the natives).

Originally posted by pinguin

What would happened if Roman would had tried? It is very likely they lost, because they didn't have the logistic to do so: they were too far away from Rome.

Logistics would be a major issue but I thought for the purposes of allowing this thread to work we were meant to ignore this lest we get to the point where the Romans not only need to reach South America but need to build a time machine when they get their so they are contemporaries with the Incans.

Regards, Praetor.

Edited by Praetor - 20-Sep-2007 at 10:11