romans conquering inca citadel
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: All Empires Community
Forum Name: Historical Amusement
Forum Discription: For role playing and alternative history discussions.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21707
Printed Date: 14-May-2024 at 18:29
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: romans conquering inca citadel
Posted By: white knight
Subject: romans conquering inca citadel
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2007 at 04:53
|
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! |
Replies:
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2007 at 04:58
|
Provided the numbers were even, the Romans would have a sure victory.
They were masters of siege warfare, they had conquered fortresses more
formidable than Machu Pichu. Plus, iron weapons against obsidian? Auxiliary compound bowmen against Native American shortbow archers? It would be no contest. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2007 at 07:54
|
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2007 at 08:03
I voted yes. Constantine's said all there is to say from me 
------------- |
Posted By: white knight
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 22:02
 i guess the entire red indian civilaization can't hold back the romans even the triple zigzag walls of the sacsahuaman citadel.
tomahawks too.
 |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 22:17
|
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)
 (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.
(6) Romans never fought at 4.000 meters of altitude... better people than them have died in the upper andes trying to walk.
(7) Incas used metalic weapons, not obsidiane like was affirmed above.
 (8) Curare was enough to kill dumb Romans in mass.
(9) Now, think a bit. If brutes like Celts and the Germanic Barbarians put in such problems to Romans, why are you so certain they were better than the couragious natives?
|
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 22:35
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.
Which proves nothing about how a Roman army would fare against an Inca citadel.
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.
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.
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.
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 22:42
|
Natives defeated troops better equiped that Romans. The Spanish tercios were the best armies in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries, and they were crushed by natives, anyways. By the way, even the "primitive" Zulues defeated the British Army, once!
Yes, Romans were well equiped to fight against organized nations on foot. However. they have quite a throuble fighting other peoples like the Picts.
I have no doubt Romans had machinery, but if Natives were able to produce such troubles to better equipt armies that came thousand of years after them, I have no doubt Romans would had problems.
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....
Natives were outnumbered. When they fought in equal conditions the palefaces were scared.
Even more, never forget Natives copied the technology of theirs enemies. They fought Custer with rifles and Spaniards with long pikes and horses...
No wonder they would pretty quickly copies the Roman machineries making theirs advantage nill
|
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2007 at 02:06
In fact, this sounds like a rather Roman thing to do. Something of pure innovative genius - it's what they were best at. ------------- |
Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2007 at 04:13
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".Wow! Did that really happened?! I can Imagine the Incas throwing boiling oil on the poor "turtles"  Anyway, i consider that physically the native Americans were the most powerful warriors on man to man battles ( at least before plate's armor usage and gunpowder invention or Spanish invasion  )------------- 
|
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2007 at 07:44
Urrrm...that was mainly because of the land, the political situation and because of betrayal. Although the Incas may have been more organised militarily that the Germans, they still had obsidian weaponry and unlike the Germans, wouldn't have a terrain advantage as the Romans were used to fighting in mountains (3 Macedonian wars, Syrian war, Mithradic wars, 3 Punic wars, and a handful of Samnite wars...). Also, Roman equestrian cavalry against "Jaguar Warriors?" please - obsidian, skins and wood don't tell a horse and an armoured rider to "stop" that easily... ------------- |
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2007 at 07:48
|
Natives crashed 'dumb' vikings? Dude, the Viking colony on mainland North America was tiny, with only about 100 people max, with no help. I'd like to see Native Americans try to beat a large Norse army. They'd Native Americans would get butchered. As for greenland, that colony fell to the little ice age, not Inuits. But as for the Romans, they would steamroll the Incas. Incan technology was completely inferior, and the Roman war machine was the second to none. ------------- Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail. Edward Abbey |
Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2007 at 08:12
|
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?
-------------
|
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2007 at 10:40
|
No, I don't underestimate them. Native Americans were very courageous warriors, but used stone or copper weapons until the introduction of iron and steel weapons introduced by Europeans. They would be at a horrible disadvantage against the Romans with their excellent armor, large shields, and iron weapons. A native army standing toe-to-toe against a Roman legion would get beaten 9 times out of 10. That 1 out of 10 victory would be due to an incredibale native general or very inept Roman commander.
------------- Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail. Edward Abbey |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2007 at 11:04
Innovative genious? ha! those were greeks, not romans
|
Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2007 at 14:54
|
Adawolf, in an other topic , it was discussed the obsidian sword's efficiency and it was shown that it was even sharper than Katana ... About the cotton armour and the lack of the lack of cavalry(not existed in America then), yes, those would be surely disadvantages in an open battle... -------------
|
Posted By: Praetor
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2007 at 08:27
Adalwolf it has been mentioned above that the Incan army did not use Obsidian. they used Copper.
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
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2007 at 08:51
|
Praetor: 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. 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.
Now, when the conquestadors 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!
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....
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.
|
Posted By: Ikki
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2007 at 12:00
|
OK pinguin, now i know who was the only one to vote the option NO ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2007 at 12:22
|
Yes! It was me.... The Americas was not a piece of cake for the Spaniards and they were 2.000 years ahead of the overstimated Romans .
It would be a hard task... I believe.
|
Posted By: Praetor
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2007 at 10:07
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.
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.
But Cusco was conquered far before the 19th century as was most of the Incan empire.
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).
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. ------------- |