Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Topic: What if Cleopatra won the Battle of Actium? Posted: 28-Jul-2005 at 20:37 |
Rome, Belisarius is quite right here. I love Roman history too but let's face the fact that for most of its history since 220 BC China has been the most militarily and economically viable state on the planet. There is a reason Rome fell long ago and China retains a history continuous to the present.
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jul-2005 at 21:25 |
Bah, how many times is this thread going to be carted around from one forum to another?!
|
|
Rome
Samurai
Joined: 29-Jun-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 129
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jul-2005 at 23:42 |
Hey Belisarius Rome of the Late Republic was not still conquering Italy and it was larger then the chinese dynasty of the time' and also the roman army in the Late Republic had many siege weapons and technology they got from the greeks.
Edited by Rome
|
|
Belisarius
Chieftain
Suspended
Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jul-2005 at 00:32 |
I never said that Rome of the Late Republic was still conquering Italy. I said that while the Romans were still conquering Italy, the Chinese Empire spanned from the Korean peninsula to the Himalayas.
It is true that the Romans may have controlled a little bit more
territory than the Han, but a lot of this excess was uninhabited
frontier in the west. There is also the fact that the Roman Empire's
population at this time was about 40 - 45 million, compared to the 70
million the Han controlled.
Greek technology? Give me an example of Greek military technology,
besides siege weapons, that the Romans implemented because to be
honest, I can not think of any.
Siege weapons? These are not much good unless you are trying to take a
city, and the Romans would be defeated long before they reached a
walled town. The Chinese had their own versions of the ballista and
trebuchet-like weapons. I now iterate. The Chinese were on a
technological level higher than that of the west.
Edited by Belisarius
|
|
Rome
Samurai
Joined: 29-Jun-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 129
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jul-2005 at 02:54 |
What ever Belisarius. you think you know alot about the roman army of the late republic but you dont even know one fourth of it. So I suggest you just do some research. witch will take you a while because of many different opinions on the subject.
Also what are you talking about saying the western provinces were uninhabited? are you forgeting the Iberian tribes and the gallic ones resently conquered by the romans that were now part of the dwindling Republic.
Edited by Rome
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jul-2005 at 09:05 |
What he means is that the western provinces were poorly populated
compared to nations like China. This was an inherent problem which
remained until the population explosions we see from the 10th-14th
centuries AD, long after the Roman Empire had collapsed. If we look at
the Roman Empire in 360 AD we see it divided in two, when civil war
broke out between the two the Western Emperor Julian could only muster
30-40,000 men for his march eastward. Now this is after a long period
of Roman rule with long established government and military
institutions.
Let's go back to China during the Warring States period in
the middle of the first millenium BC (about 1000 years before Julian
went on his civil war). In this period China was divided into roughly
12 warring states. Now in one battle during this period the state of
Qin was successful. After the battle they found they had amassed a
total enemy deathcount of 480,000 men! Nothing the Romans fielded in
one battle compared to that (and that's just the defeated army, the
victorious one was larger) This is the defeated army of ONE of 12 major
states in pre-Shi Huang De China. Now can you imagine half a millennium
down the track with all those states united how absolutely enormous the
military manpower of China was? It easily dwarfed anything Rome was
able to put into the field.
Edited by Constantine XI
|
|
Belisarius
Chieftain
Suspended
Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jul-2005 at 14:04 |
Originally posted by Rome
What ever Belisarius. you think you know alot about
the roman army of the late republic but you dont even know one fourth
of it. So I suggest you just do some research. witch will take you a
while because of many different opinions on the subject.
Also what are you talking about saying the western provinces were
uninhabited? are you forgeting the Iberian tribes and the gallic ones
resently conquered by the romans that were now part of
the dwindling Republic. |
Frankly, now I am speechless. My research sufficient, it is your sources which I suspect need some verifying.
All this time that I spoken with you, not once have you presented any
historical facts or suggested any probably scenarios to support your
theory. All you have been saying is, "Rome is the best, no one can beat
Rome, because Rome is the best and everyone else is useless".
If you know so much about Roman history, then tell us how you think a
single Roman army could subjugate all of China instead of how you
believe I am wrong. If I am so wrong, prove it.
|
|
Rome
Samurai
Joined: 29-Jun-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 129
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jul-2005 at 18:19 |
Thats funny that you underestimate my intelligence on Rome because I havent gone full indeplth on the things I say.
Hey Belisarius you really are a funny person saying that when I dont say anything indepth that its funny. yeah right! hahaha. Well if you know so much and can go indepth then why dont you explain the Chinese army in 60 b.c. to 44 b.c to me if you can.
Edited by Rome
|
|
Belisarius
Chieftain
Suspended
Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jul-2005 at 18:21 |
But you have not said anything to support your claims at all, so it is funny that you would suggest you could go in depth at all.
Well go ahead then. Don't hold back. I am always up for
historical discussion. It is when somebody insults my intelligence and
my integrity then does nothing but make childish comments that I get upset.
Edited by Belisarius
|
|
Rome
Samurai
Joined: 29-Jun-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 129
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Aug-2005 at 23:39 |
Hey Belisarius you really are a funny person saying that when I dont say anything indepth that its funny. yeah right! hahaha. Well if you know so much and can go indepth then why dont you explain the Chinese army in 60 b.c. to 44 b.c to me if you can.
|
|
Rome
Samurai
Joined: 29-Jun-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 129
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Aug-2005 at 23:55 |
Belisarius come on explain.
|
|
Belisarius
Chieftain
Suspended
Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Aug-2005 at 02:19 |
Can you be any more immature? You have yet to present any
arguments other than the "China
stinks, Rome rules" argument.
Are you badgering me because I said that a single Roman army could not defeat
all of China?
Then you put words in my mouth telling me that I think I am so smart. I never
implied such a thing. You are the one telling me how smart you are when you
have not given any facts to support what you say. Well since you asked me so
nicely I will right some things about the Chinese army during the time of the
Late Republic of Rome.
While the Senate ruled the policies of the Roman Republic, the Western Han Dynasty,
the first of two Han administrations, ruled in China.
They were in power from 206 - 9 BCE before Wang Mang, a Han official, seized
the throne. The Han were known for their effective administration, fabulous
wealth, and military prowess.
Han weapons were made from bronze. It is a popular myth that iron is stronger
than bronze. In actuality, bronze and iron are similar in weight and hardness.
However, bronze is more expensive to produce. The blades were coated with
chrome which increased their sharpness. Even today, when European weapons from
even a century ago have dulled and rusted, Han weapons remain so sharp that
special equipment is needed to handle them.
The average infantryman wore an iron or steel breastplate and shoulder
pauldrons over leather. There are also records of Han armor being made of iron
strips over leather. Anything heavier was useless, since available weapons were
so sharp. There were variations made to suit light and heavy troop types.
Helmets were made of bronze or iron and covered all of the top and back of the
head. A standard levy was armed and trained with heavy polearms. There were
light and heavy infantry divisions armed with polearms, swords, bows, and
crossbows. The power of the crossbow could neutralize cavalry charges and
disrupt infantry formations. However, the main offensive arm of the Han army
was its cavalry. The cavalry divisions also had light and heavy varieties.
There were light cavalry used to skirmish with, harass, and chase enemy troops.
Other than these skirmishers, there were the mounted archers, adapted into the
Chinese army after frequent wars with the Huns. Of course there was heavy shock
cavalry as well.
The Han army was made up of practically every troop-type.
The empire's constant wars with the Huns forced them to adopt similar light
cavalry types to swiftly counter an enemy who could strike hard at any point of
a long border. Their success against the Xiong-nu Huns shows how effective the
empire's forces were. This is more admirable when the Xiong-nu could call upon
a million light horsemen at any time. The Romans were never fond of cavalry,
something they would regret later on when light Hunnic cavalry and heavy German
cavalry defeated their legions. On the other hand, the Han army emphasized
cavalry to the point where they would conquer a neighbor just to acquire better
horses. The Chinese were also using stirrups which made riding much easier.
Chinese siege weapons were arguably the most advanced in the
world. Chinese trebuchets were able to hurl 100-150 kg up to 200 meters while
the heaviest Roman onager was only able to hurl 68 kg up to 60 meters. The
Chinese had their own versions of the ballista as well, with similar range.
Chinese metallurgy was the most advanced in the world. Blast-furnaces were
commonplace in the Han Empire, and steel-making originated during this time.
Han tactics had been honed and developed for centuries due to constant civil
wars and powerful foreign enemies. The Art of War, by Sun-Tzu, was
written centuries before and was required reading for all Chinese commanders.
The Roman army at the time of Julius Caesar was comprised of 325,000 men, not
counting the regional garrisons. The Han could call on an army of millions, all
well-equipped and well-trained. The Great Wall was constantly manned by a
million men. While the Romans might have been able to conscript a million men,
it would have been out of the empires ability to properly equip, train, and
feed all of them to make them a standing force. For the Romans to feed such an
army, they would have had food shortages all over the empire. Chinese logistics
were able to do this with their army, without ever having to worry about food
shortages. This is accentuated when the population of the Romanl Republic was 40 45 million and
the population of the Han Empire was 70 million.
All this said, I ask you again, how can a singular Roman
army conquer all of the Han Empire? Please, say something mature this time.
Edited by Belisarius
|
|
Rome
Samurai
Joined: 29-Jun-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 129
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Aug-2005 at 02:54 |
ok I will say that the roman army could not have conquered china and also thanks for the great info. so no hard fellings. though I do have to say do not underestimate the legions of Caesar because I still think Caesars 10 Legions, Numidian cavalry, Gallic cavalry, German cavalry, Balearic slingers, and Cretan archers could put up a good fight against a Han army. Were do you get your info because Ive been look for that info for a while. Also Im truly sorry for what I said.
Edited by Rome
|
|
Belisarius
Chieftain
Suspended
Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Aug-2005 at 03:09 |
It is no problem at all. We are all on this forum so we can learn from
each other, as long as we keep an open mind. Roman history, especially
Byzantine history, is my favorite era in history.
For what I wrote above, I used information from the Osprey series of
books on ancient China. There are also many books on Rome made by
Osprey. Otherwise, I read lots of encyclopedias, talk with professors,
and e-mail historians.
|
|
Rome
Samurai
Joined: 29-Jun-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 129
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Aug-2005 at 03:22 |
how do you know these historians and do you know anyone that can help me with finding out exactly how many people were in the legion in the time of Caesar and the amount of men were in Caesars Cavalry forces (Gaulic, German, and Numidian). Trust me its hard finding info on the subject because I have been searching for a while.
|
|
Belisarius
Chieftain
Suspended
Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Aug-2005 at 03:27 |
I do not know any historians personally, I just find their names on
articles, books and things like that. If precise numbers are what you
are looking for, Dr. Kenneth W. Harl is some one you should get in
touch with. He is a professor at Tulane University and you could
probably get his e-mail at the Tulane site.
|
|
Rome
Samurai
Joined: 29-Jun-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 129
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Aug-2005 at 03:34 |
what is the exact site name.
|
|
Belisarius
Chieftain
Suspended
Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Aug-2005 at 08:44 |
I found it for you. I do not know if posting e-mail is allowed, so I'll pm you it.
Edited by Belisarius
|
|
medenaywe
AE Moderator
Master of Meanings
Joined: 06-Nov-2010
Location: /
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17084
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Feb-2011 at 15:59 |
Best title of this topic would be:Why Cleopatra has lost the battle of Actium!?!
Edited by medenaywe - 21-Feb-2011 at 18:10
|
|
opuslola
Tsar
suspended
Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Feb-2011 at 18:10 |
Good old Cleo! What a girl! But not much of an admiral! Perhaps she should have used a lot of Greek Merc's?/pirates?
I consider this just another version of almost any of the plays done before and after Shakespeare!
Mostly it is Bull-sh-t!"
Please report any "real" facts, that support such a battle, or even the existance of her?
By the use of the word "real", I would suggest an account of this war and its subsequent end, engraved within stone?
Or better yet, found within surviving papyrus letters, etc.?
Just where are the stones? And, if they do exist, just how were they dated?
Edited by opuslola - 21-Feb-2011 at 18:13
|
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
|
|