dnewhous

The Byzantine empire was still around when the Mongols were, so the question is not that unfair. I figured that the Roman shields would be unreliable against the Mongol compound bow, but how do you know that the Chinese crossbow would penetrate it? The Romans did eventually defeat the Parthians, though they chose not to attempt to add the territory to the empire. Their big defeat at the hands of the Parthians was when they were led by an incompetent fool whose only claim to fame was defeating a slave revolt. Also, the cataphract cavalry intrigues me. Could it have had some success agains Chinese archers? If I'm not mistaken Roman cavalry was more of a run up close and use your sword kind of thing, not much into archery. Also, when did Rome invent their crossbow? It could be after encountering China they found it much more important than they did before.

Don't be so certain that the cultures in the east were not diverse before they were unified. There are at least two major languages in China, Mandarin and Canton. That's not even counting Tibet. It looks like one culture now, but how would Europe look culturally if the empire never broke up?

The Romans adopted cavalry themselves. The Romans in their heyday had the abiility to adopt innovations into their military whereas at their end they were increasingly dependent on foreign mercenaries. Remind anyone of the Persian empire? The Romans didn't have crossbows, but as someone else points out, crossbows weren't very good for cavalry anyway.

The loose formation with the infantry doesn't sound particularly impressive.

The Huns invaded when the empire was weak and in decline. If they had invaded during the reign of the Antonines I doubt they would have been successful. The discipline and professionalism of the army wasn't there any more.

The Roman army seams to have operated as an ani-poverty program for the poor. Julius Caesar was murdered in part because he was a populist and the patricians hated him for it. Julius's anti-poverty program - invade backwards Europe, murder and displace the natives, and replace them with impoverished Roman colonists. In addition to being unethical the territory conquered was undeveloped and didn't contribute much to the empire.

Gaius Marius did what he had to do. He was responding to events. The consequence of not doing what he did would have been worse.

Octavian is the one who really organized the empire's army. I have been very impressed with the Romans, given what I have learned about their military organization. The Romans discarded the Greek phalanx because it wasn't good enough. Yet the Persians relied on Greek mercenaries because the Greek phalanx was so much better than their own military organization. Alexander commented that there were more Greeks fighting against him than for him. But this is anecdotal since I know very little about Chinese history. As demonstrated by the people who think the Roman empire only had 7 million people, very few people know much about both. But generally speaking, Western civilization fields superior armies - where numbers don't tell the true strength. The Spartans are credited with starting this tradition. The Roman army was much larger than the organized armies of the European middle ages, but it was typically outnumbered by the natives as the empire expanded. Alexander had 30000 infantry and 5000 cavalry and look what he accomplished. Even today, China only fields an army of 275,000 men that we would consider a front line fighting force, compared to 500,000 by the United States (we are relying heavily on 2nd and 3rd stringers in Iraq). The rest of the Chinese army is for the purpose of occupation. If it weren't for the other 2.5 million men the Chinese empire, even now, would splinter up. Not just Tibet. Various officials would grab what men and power they could and form independent domains. History also demonstrates something else - the requirements of an army that is designed to destroy other armies in the field are very different from one that is designed for occupation. I say the Roman army destroys the Chinese army in the field, but occupying the empire is hopeless. If the population of the Roman empire was underestimated by these people, the population of China may have been too. A more interesting question - could the Roman empire have fought off an invasion by the Mongols? (Moving Ghenghis about 1000 years into the past.) The Chinese couldn't. And they certainly outnumbered the Mongols. Technologically, the Romans liked heavy infantry whereas the Chinese and Mongols liked cavalry and archers. The Mongol composite bow far outclasses anything even today. But the Romans had those giant shields. However, military prowess is not the best way to measure an empire. The Roman empire is better because it fell. This eventually led to the decentralization and innovation of the Rennaissance and Enlightenment. The Chinese Empire is what Rome would have been had the stagnation of the late empire continued for 1000 years.

Julius Caesar was an egomaniac for sure, but he was also a genuine populist. The point that needs to be made - the reason the Republic fell is because there was no popular support for the senate. When Caesar invaded Italy the people sided with him. That's why the empire fell.

In Primus Pilus's description of the Marus reforms, he mentions that in the late Republic all the land was bought up by the patricians and equestrians leading to a dispossession of the family farmer. Why did that happen? His write up doesn't answer that. There's something else that is ambiguous. Could a plebian who owns his own land but is not equestrian serve in the army? I suppose it's a question of whether they could afford to equip themselves. Something tells me this might have changed over time in the Republic, I have a mental image of the early Republic's army being somewhat irregular but the late Republic's army being fairly well equipped.

I was going by some unreliable sources for my information on England. Is it the same for rural, suburban, and urban residents? Sorry for the error.

Don't get condescending, jerk. Except for your book reference I already knew what you have written in this post. In an earlier post, you implied that the landless headcount of Rome were not plebians, but beneath them, which is something I had not heard before. You also state "there was no peasantry in the city of rome." Since peasantry is not a well-defined term in the Roman world (perhaps I shouldn't have used it) I'd like you to explain exactly what you mean by it. What you mean by "peasantry" and what I mean by "peasantry" might be different.

Plebians - by this do you mean non-nobles who had their own land? I didn't know that the landless were not considered plebians. I haven't specified what I meant by "peasantry" but I can hardly imagine that there were no farmers who had their homes in the city of Rome. Like someone posted earlier, for some reason the land started to get bought up by the patricians and the equestrians and the family farmer started to disappear. Why did that happen? That is critical.

I wasn't talking about racism at all. I am saying prisoners of war and people from conquered territories should never have been made slaves in the first place. I am well aware that slavery has been with mankind since the beginning, but it wasn't until I learned about the Marius reforms that I realized how devestating it was to the common people of Rome. My point is that if the peasantry was free - whether farmers, or paid, or even indentured servants, then letting common people into the army would not have been a problem. You can't have democracy (or a republic) when the majority of your people are landless poor. It doesn't work. Ever. The effects of this are a problem even now. Most people in England do not actually own the land upon which they have their home! Unlike what some Europe loving leftist economists think, private property is the cornerstone of prosperity and freedom.

I thought that Rome had adopted a standing army after the Gaullic sack in 390 b.c. I suppose there must have been some reform of the army after 390 b.c., did anything interesting happen?

After reading that I am reminded of a very fundamental problem with Roman society which is not in the poll and which makes the poll invalid. SLAVERY AND SERFDOM. Why pay people an honest wage for working your land when you can force slaves/serfs to do it for you?

What exactly were the military reforms of Marius?

The U.K. ought to be on there and Germany ought not to be on there. The Roman holdings corresponded to Austria and Hungary, not Germany. I'd like to see someone trace which noble families of Europe can trace their heredity back to the Roman patricians. Anyone in the UK House of Lords?

And since Marcus Aurelius chose Commodus as his heir, his wisdom obviously has limitations.

What were the numbers on both sides of that battle?

I remember reading part of a book on the first 12 emperors, and when Marc Antony made it known he wanted to be emperor following Caesar someone laughed at him. Julius was truly an extraordinary though mad individual. Marc Antony was just a lower measure of man. There's no way Marc Antony could have kept the empire together. What's amazing about the Roman empire is that so many of the emperors really were talented individuals - which was partially due to the nature of succession. To some extent, whoever was emperor was the man who could make himself emperor. Heredity was only loosely correlated with succession. In the Octavian/Marc Antony dispute I'm sure part of what happened was that the legionaires could plainly see who the better man was. The people of Egypt may have bought Cleopatra/Antony as gods, but Italy and Greece? Italians took Julius seriously because he proved himself on the battlefield. Poor Cleopatra, she probably just assumed the heir apparent would be the man to get power. She was trying to tie her nation's fate to the rising star of Rome. It's just that Roman politics were a bit complicated. I just thought of something - wasn't Marc Antony equestrian and not patrician?

I meant, did Alexander take any generals from any of the other Greek city states? All Octavian had to do was rename himself and the people liked him? Wow, and we think the American public is ignorant and gullible...

What does Octavian have to do with the name "Caesar?" And were all of Alexander's generals Macedonian? I thought he conquered the world by finally uniting Greece.

I'm really interested in the opinion of those more knowledgeable - it seams to me that if it weren't for Octavian, that the Roman Empire would probably have fragmented into bits and pieces after the major exapansions of Julius Caesar, much like Alexander's conquests fragmented after his death. Octavian is the one man in the West who figured out how to govern that much territory under one government. And, unlike China, the emperor remained firmly in control of the governing bureacracy.

The first thing the soldiers learned was "Where is the brothel?" Anyway, where was Pontius's wife from? I want to ascertain if he might have fallen back to Latin in his private moments. Greek was the language of culture and learning of the entire Mediterranean - but by the Englightenment European scientific papers were published in Latin. That't the language Newton published in.