re: Most underrated ancient empire

quote:

---

Crassus probably thought otherwise

---

Yeah Crassus took an army over there and lost...it was really too far for Rome to conquer. Rome lost many battles to many peoples. Beating Rome in a battle doesn’t make you a special empire.

quote:

---

If Hannibal would've marched on Rome after Cannae, human history would've been vastly different. Before people come back with the "he didn't have the resources to siege Rome" argument, the Roman army was absolutely decimated with only a sparse defense force left for Rome. Their allies were revoking their support left and right. Morale was at an all time low. They wouldn't have needed to siege Rome, the citizens of Rome wouldn't have much fight

---

he didn't have the resources to get to Rome much less take it over.

Call Pipes R Us and let us peak,






















































In your pipes

Yeah but the Egyptians invented the Thermos bottle.

quote:

---

Trajun beat parthia once

---

fricking refs

quote:

---

Trajun beat parthia once

---

Also true

quote:

---

He neither had the seige equipment, the manpower or supply lines to march on Rome.

The Servian walls at the time were a huge defense measure for the city of Rome with adequate men to cripple an attack (6,000- 10,000). Hannibal had only some 40-45,000 men to attack that wall.

---

This is the issue I've always had with this argument, which I've had several times.

The two prerequisites to any action is ability and willingness. Rome had the ability to withstand a seige, but I severely question the willingness. Only one consul was alive and completely discredited post battle. Romans were compelely distraught. In less than 2 years, Rome had lost 20% of their adult male population. If Hannibal showed up at the walls I'm highly skeptical in Rome not wanting some sort of concession. I doubt full out surrender due to their memories of the previous sack of Rome, but a concession would not be out of the realm of possibilites.

Of course then there is the same willingness and ability arguement on the side of Hannibal. Willingness is clearly yes, but ability has always been the question. The supply line argument is fair and a key question. A better plan would've been to try and take Ostia (Rome's port) and let the powers that be in Carthage reinforce their likely victorious general, which is historically when bureaucratic oligarchs love taking risks (i.e. when there is little to be taken).

If you try to do simple averages of ability and willingness you may come to the conclusion that Rome was in a better situation, but historically the usual heuristic is that when one of these factors are at extremes, it completely negates any advantage in the other. Perfect example is China not stimulating credit growth right now. The have the willingness, but their ability is incredibly constrained by total leverage in the country, but more importantly the dearth of capital flows the country has had over the past 4 years. It's crazy how much that country needs capital flows right now. The banking system has been operating at an annual deposit deficit for 4 straight years. Its no mystery why they strong armed MSCI to force index inclusion last year.

To be fair, I do recognize the major hole in this entire argument, and that is Hannibal's willingness to accept anything other than the complete decimation of Rome. That I will obviously concede.