Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Azkanan]

I was curious on your thoughts on this...

The ultimate goal of human civilization for unity, peace and prosperity is a one-world-government.

Back in the 2nd Century AD, the Roman Republic was doing a pretty good job of this. They took over land, incorporated it into their own, and improved the lives of the locals and gave them a word in how the country was run.

Of course, then you have the fact that they force-vassalised them, enslaves half the population, etc... But still.

Then there are a few theories as to why the Roman Empire declined. Take your pick.

Debate 1: Is it a general law of the universe that anything and everything larger than its average will collapse? Stars, galaxies, empires, egos; anything I can imagine that becomes large, collapses.

Debate 2: If the Roman Empire had no declined, how far would their empire reach today? Would the United States of America, the new world, be a Roman-controlled land? Who would of won in the Chinese VS Roman war that was sure to ensue? Would we have a one-world-government by now, and how would we have faired today technologically, ecologically, economically... without the dark ages that followed the collapse of the Roman Empire?

In 500~ years, they did this:

[Max White]

1. They were too good at what they did. Their technology and military strategy allowed them to steam roll over the land, but they should have taken it more slowly. Expanding as fast as they did, they didn't capture the hearts of the locals before moving on, thus leading to rebellions later on down the track. Had they spent a few more generations between conquest, get people much more used to Roman rule, they would have done better.
2. Yea, they had things pretty sweet. It may very well be possible for them to have taken over the world, who knows. Their leadership would be been tested, but I don't see why it is 100% impossible.

[NRDL]

Wow.   I absolutely love the Romans, especially their military awesomeness, this thread is gonna be interesting.

The common reasons for the decline of the empire ( that I've been told or heard ) was both the reliance on slaves, and the reliance on plundering enemy kingdoms, tribes, nations just to make money.  The Eastern Roman empire ( Byzantines ) survived whereas the Western half of the empire didn't was I'm guessing because the territory in the east was more valuable in terms of resources.  The Western half was basically a skeleton that did not have any flesh left. 

I really don't know WHY they collapsed, political disunity, economic breakdown, the barbarian invasions didn't help, all this probably contributed, unless someone can tell me exactly how one or more of these didn't happen.  If they managed to remain a cohesive empire, remain politically undivided and establish better routes for resources, armies and people to travel...well, they would have been capable of a LOT. 

An Ancient China vs. Rome?  I'm really not that interested in China's history, or was not, so I don't know much, other than from reading about Mongol conquests of China.  And that might not much the era of the Roman empire. 

Before I write anything, can this be a discussion for anything Roman related? 

[Azkanan]

Before I write anything, can this be a discussion for anything Roman related?

Sure. It's all research for me.

[NRDL]

Before I write anything, can this be a discussion for anything Roman related?

Sure. It's all research for me.

I'm not sure if its research if I'm talking about a hypothetical China vs. Rome war.  But ok, thanks.

The Chinese would have a considerably large population even then right?  And the Roman empire at its peak, according to your map, doesn't have a direct land border.  Hmm...the navy would have certainly been substantial enough to transport the 25-30 legions at the time, lots of auxilia, etc.

The advantage seems to rest too much with the Chinese.  Their high population, with which they could gather way too many troops in a medium amount of time, would just swamp even all the legions put together.  Even when adding auxiliaries the numbers would be in China's favor.  It would be impossible to win a war of attrition against them.

So, if a campaign in China could be in any way possible, it would take a very good Roman general, the majority of the legions, the complete backing of the navy, and a good defensible city or position, possibly along the coast of China where a Roman army could defend itself and also go on limited attacks, so long as they don't stray too far. 

The mongols managed to conquer China, but that was because the Mongol armies were infinitely more maneuverable and just generally faster than any other army, long after the Romans.  A roman army would be about an equal in terms of strategic speed with any Chinese army.  So outmaneuvering them isn't really an option.

Even if a very capable general, with an extremely loyal army, who was able to force march his army to above average speed, the constant series of battles against Chinese armies would wear any Roman army to the ground.  And reinforcing a Roman army would be impossible unless the army in question were stationed in a defensible spot where soldiers could be ferried by boat, in my coastal stronghold example.  But then, this would be very difficult, as the army would have to constantly return after suffering heavy casualties, and would be vulnerable.

Really, the peak state of the Roman empire's armies just wouldn't be enough to compete with the numbers of the Chinese, not to mention any able generals they might have or their already complete control over their land.  The Roman empire would have to probably double their total number of legions to wage war on roughly equal terms.

*Takes deep breath*

Sorry if I've been incorrect on any point, or if this really just wasn't interesting.  I'd be happy for someone to point a flaw in my argument, I'd like to see the Romans get a better chance in a hypothetical war against the Chinese. 

[scriver]

The ultimate goal of human civilization for unity, peace and prosperity is a one-world-government.

What. Just what.

[Azkanan]

The ultimate goal of human civilization for unity, peace and prosperity is a one-world-government.

What. Just what.

I need to add a disclaimer?

The ultimate goal of human civilization for united, peace and prosperity is a one-world-government, which exception to other possible theories.

-snip-

Well actually, the Romans were pretty close to the Chinese empire at their peak.



If the romans had taken some land to the east, they would have a bottleneck battle on their hands.

However, as previously mentioned by Max, I think their main worry would of been instability over attrition. If they got into a large-scale war, the draw of soldiers from stabilizing captured provinces to the front-line would of left their infrastructure highly susceptible to revolts.

In fact, that's probably what the problem was. With all the soldiers guarding against wary neighbours on the borders, they had minimum soldiers guarding their lands.

[Lord Dullard]

An Ancient China vs. Rome?  I'm really not that interested in China's history, or was not, so I don't know much, other than from reading about Mongol conquests of China.  And that might not much the era of the Roman empire. 

What, really? Chinese history is pretty awesome, actually. Romance of the Three Kingdoms is a good place to start on that, although of course it's very embellished. However, it's all based on real people and events.

Also, posting to watch, and probably contribute eventually. Roman history is also awesome.

[Azkanan]

Also, posting to watch, and probably contribute eventually. Roman history is also awesome.

I'm making a sandbox-simulation MMO based on Earth, so all this is of interest to me .

[RedKing]

I'm not all that convinced that Rome and China would automatically have been enemies. The Chinese were aware of the existence of a large, powerful empire far to the west which they called Da Qin (Great Qin, an allusion to the pre-Imperial kingdom of Qin, which had been the westernmost part of China). Chinese attitudes towards Da Qin were quite favorable, as they commented that the Da Qinren were known for living justly and fairly. For their part, the Romans knew dimly of a people they called the Seres who lived in splendor to the east and provided all dat silk that the ladies love so much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Roman_relations

Amusing to note that even then, they were complaining about trade deficits with China. 

"By the lowest reckoning, India, Seres and the Arabian peninsula take from our Empire 100 millions of sesterces every year: that is how much our luxuries and women cost us."
—Pliny the Elder, Natural History 12.84.

[jester]

I believe the great Terry Pratchet summed up the problems of the roman empire something like this (though I could be wrong, its late):  You have a good army, decent country, good leadership, but the jerks over the borders keep raiding you, so you conquer them and do some exploiting, not too much or they will rebel, and you will have to conquer them all over again.  Then, once the jerks are within the empire, they start complaining about the pricks in the next country raiding them, so you conquer them too, meanwhile the jerks have gone back to doing a little light raiding on the side, then the pricks start complaining about raiding from the next country, the arseholes, so you conquer them too, now the jerks and the arseholes have hated each other forever, this was great when you were warring against them, now there are riots and pogroms in your towns and cities.  You have to do a bit more general conquering to keep things under wraps, then the arseholes start complaining about the guys in the next non roman country raiding em, and so on.

  The main problems great empires of the past have faced are generally:
1:  Even after you conquer them, you still need to keep fairly large garrisons about to keep things under wraps, the romans had to smash up the greeks repeatedly even with large garrisons

2:  Where the hell do you stop?  Wars are reeeeeally expensive in wealth and men, even back in the day, plunder helped, but that only turned up after the fact and there wasnt any guarantee on the size.  So you couldnt just take stuff over all the time, eventually lines had to be drawn and you had to stop somewhere.

3.  Communications, and this is the biggy.  When the brits first started taking over india, it took 6 months for a message to reach india from britan by ship, so if you had a question going from india, to England to be answered, then back to india, thats 18 months+, obviously this is a problem.  If the romans had of been going for world domination, they would have at least needed the telegraph or have had multiple centers of power, which is basically just a pile of separate countries anyway

As for China vs Rome, Id say the romans defiantly had the edge on the battlefield, even if the chinese had explosives, the romans would have gotten hold of them fast, as it stands though china might be on the other side of the moon in terms of moving a full sized invasion force to there from rome with roman era shipping.  Id say most likely result is alot of drowned people

[mainiac]

While it's true that rebellions weakened the Roman empire, they were rebellions within the army, not local uprisings.  Most of the local uprisings were in the earlier period, when the empire was still pretty strong.

In addition to the barracks empires, no discussion of Roman collapse can be complete without discussing the Roman population decline that preceded the collapse of the empire.  It was this collapse that lead to the empire being able to raise and pay fewer troops, domestic and barbarian.

Finally there was a big increase in the level of barbarian invasions.  It's called the migration period for a reason.

It's interesting to note that for a decent stretch of time, the Romans had very good relations with the Sassanids, the last Zoroastrian empire in Persia.  There was even a future Eastern Roman emperor who was sent to be raised in the Persian court while he was heir apparent.  This relationship broke down however as religious persecutions replaced religious tolerance on both sides.

Rome reaching China would take a long, long time.  Technology would need to improve a lot.  There was a lot of room in between Rome and China.  At one point there were two great empires (Persia and Ethiopia) in between them and still plenty of territory in smaller states.

It's not a good assumption to make that the Romans raised the standard of living of the local peoples, especially after 300 AD.  Serfdom was a Roman invention.  There is some archaeological evidence to suggest that the standard of living went up after the barbarians moved in.

[Azkanan]

It's not a good assumption to make that the Romans raised the standard of living of the local peoples, especially after 300 AD.  Serfdom was a Roman invention.  There is some archaeological evidence to suggest that the standard of living went up after the barbarians moved in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

Yes, I did go by Monty Python as if it were historically accurate.

[darkflagrance]

I was curious on your thoughts on this...

The ultimate goal of human civilization for unity, peace and prosperity is a one-world-government.

I dispute this as true. We might dream of a perfect one world government, but human realities seem to point to overweening bureaucracies as an inevitable tool for elite abuse. No government we are currently capable of would necessarily accomplish unity, peace, and prosperity through establishing a one-world-government alone; there are too many fissures between peoples for that to be truly stable. Nothing either Rome or China could have pulled together at the time would have been capable of being a stable one-world-government.

[chaoticag]

Can someone reupload the image in the OP. My ISP has that as a blocked site.