fuser wrote:None.
sorry but I always find this kind of juxtaposition silly.
Party pooper
fuser wrote:And
Hannibal was himself to blame for defeat of carthage for his failure to sack rome when it was basically defenceless. Then, Carthage was always at disadvantage as it didn't possessed the resources to match rome and her army was mostly consisted of mercenaries unlike the Romans. Its surprising in itself that Carthage managed to stand for so long.
But what sealed the Roman supremacy was not the punic war but the syrian war where Antiochus the idiot was defeated decisively to pave way for total roman supremacy in the med including the bread basket Egypt facilitating further imperial growth.
To be fair to Antichus, and other leaders that went up against Rome (eg: Pyrhus, Phillip V, Hanibal, etc), he really didn't have the war machine that the Romans had. A war machine is as much about generation of force as it is organisation and application (tactics) of that force. This is a repsonse to Plaro's comment here as well:
Plaro wrote:At the same time, Romans defeated Hanibal (who was simply awesome), someone who was like Alexander the Great in his ability to wage war and battle. Basically they defeated a military genius by having their usual very good generals and good army. Not only did they defended Rome against Hanibal's malice, but also turned the tied around and defeated Carthage. Not so many nations in the world have been able to pull of such a task.
Rome had a population of around 250,000 million, very large by the standards of the day. They could lose many battles and keep coming back for more (this is what I mean't when I said they were persistent). Pyrrhus and Hanibal both discovered even clear victories over the Romans only cause them a tempory set back while a lose by Pyrrhus or Hanibal was decisive on the outcome of the war.
It was the case that Antiochus simply couldn't sustain war like the Romans could. As it happens, he didn't preform well in his two battles with them either, which makes him look kinda dorky compared to Pyrrhus and Hanibal (the later was a general of Antiochus during the war with Rome).
So the Romans were masters of logistics and force generation. In this sense, they seem comparable with the contemory hegemony, the USA. Likewise the US is persistent and vindictive(eg: Iraq, war on terror, and they just won't give up on Iran). The treatment of Carthage after it's fianl defeat shows the vindictivness of the Romans. There seems to be a similar outlook between the two cultures.
Plaro wrote:Also with Romans, perhaps modern American military might be somewhat close to Roman one. Yet Romans are interesting, they had really good military leadership always. They had many good generals generation after generation, which you do not see in many countries. Perhaps England comes close to it, especially in The One Hundred Years of War with France. Where I can remember English kings performed very well in battle and their generals, usually defeating their French rivals tactically and strategically. Even though the French for most part had a superior force and fought on their homeland with better supply line available.
As I warned Igor, I warn you too. Never compare the British with the Romans. They get too much satisfaction out of it.
On the subject though, I'd argue the British ran a 'common or garden variety' empire. History has plenty of examples of a militarily successful group coming in and lording it over the conquered. In regard to the focus of our 'silly juxtapositions', I'd argue that the British Empire is more like the Achaemenid Empire. They just came in and set themselves up as the new ruling class, then started expoliting the place to enrich themselves. A typical imperial structure in world history, though such empires are typically short lived.
Plaro wrote:I never got around to reading about the Peloponesian War, even though I had the book. I should finally get to reading it. You inspired me now with all this ancient history talk.
Thucydides, author of 'The Peloponnesian War', is a boring writer, say compared to Plutarch. But he tries to be objective and thorough. I am up to the 8th year of the war. There is a battle at Delium between the Boeotians and the Athenians which Thycudides describes in detail. He states the Theban hoplites were formed 25 deep, Athenians 8 deep and non Theban Boeotians had a variety of formations (ie: no pattern to the deep of their phalanx). I found this very intersting as here are the Thebans with a deep phalanx 50 years before their famous victory over the Spartans at Leuctra (Delium: 424BC; Leuctra: 371BC), in which they deployed the scared band 50 deep and used an oblique approach, breaking the Spartan line with their deep collum before the reast of the line came in contact. So Thucydides describes the Thebans using a precursor to Epaminondas' famous tactic.
I recomend reading that book. Xenophon's 'Hellenica' follows on where Thucydides left off. I am yet to get my hands on that one.