If the Romans had known about the new world, could they have conquered a significant portion of it?
How would they even get there? Their nautical engineering was garbage tier except for the palace ships.
>>1218129
Depends on whether or not they could build and maintain supply chains.
Mongols could have.
>>1218129
No because there's no way they could move troops across the Atlantic and sustain supply and communication as effectively as Europeans a thousand years later.
>>1218134
They couldn't even land in Japan
Couldn't even conquer Germania and it was right on their doorstep.
>>1218129
Assuming they had the technology to sail, probably. I'm not even sure the technological level that Mezoamericans had at that time but Rome would still hold an advantage with metal working and what not. If they had a stable base of operations they would probably blow through all the naked natives there.
>>1218129
Hell no.
>>1218140
Because of the Japanese, how is this anywhere remotely the same when referring to Native Americans? The Japanese were evidently forged in warfare much like most of the other world, Native Americans and South Americans at that would, not have stood a chance.
South Americans mainly practised in faux-warfare as a means to 'fairly' acquire sacrifices.
>>1218161
>Because of the Japanese,
No, because of the wind.
As for the rest of your post: Are you implying that the Aztecs weren't a warrior-culture?
The Europeans 1000 years later probably couldn't have conquered the new world if it wasn't for the power of disease.
>>1218142
Would Aztecs be more or less awful to fight against than the Germanic tribes?
>>1218164
>Are you implying that the Aztecs weren't a warrior-culture?
No, they were not. I literally just addressed this. Mesoamericans did not fight like the rest of the world, they fought for captives.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_war
Their whole warrior culture is based around how many captives they bring back from battle... To sacrifice..
>>1218176
Probably easier. I mean they didn't even have iron working by the time Columbus showed up.
>>1218183
>Mesoamericans did not fight like the rest of the world, they fought for captives.
How does that make them less of a warrior culture? I don't understand why you think the fact that they fought for captives disqualifies them.
>>1218201
He's saying they did not fight on as grand a scale, had little experience with sieges or urban defense, and did not fight as hard.
>>1218210
Well, I'm not talking about their ability to repel Romans, I'm simply implying that war and warriors were integral to their culture.
>>1218201
Exactly this >>1218210
How can a warrior society who only fought mock battles for the purpose of acquiring slaves fare even remotely well against a warrior society who fought for the sole purpose of conquering nations?
Are you even aware that most Aztec warriors were not even allowed to wear shoes on the battlefield until they captured enough slaves?
>>1218226
What, but I never even said they were not a warrior society, but that their warrior society was essentially fake.
>>1218129
why would they have? that's like the turks colonizing
>>1218230
>Are you even aware that most Aztec warriors were not even allowed to wear shoes on the battlefield until they captured enough slaves?
Sounds like a tradition that only a warrior culture could have.
See >>1218226, you fundamentallly misunderstand what I'm trying to imply, which is that you'd have to be an idiot not to notice the objective fact that the Aztec religion, Aztec economy, and Aztec political life were structured around warfare, and produced individuals who viewed themselves as warriors.
I honestly don't know why I'm bothering to argue with someone who thinks that the Mongols managed to land in Japan.
>>1218236
>but that their warrior society was essentially fake.
You have yet to support this claim--I asked you to and you just said "They couldn't wear shoes till they killed someone!" Your implication was that Flower Wars weren't real wars--why would that be the case?
>>1218253
"warfare"
Our argument is that mock warfare in a limited jungle is not equivalent to genuine, genocidal, continent-spanning campaigns.
>>1218253
But you understand this thread is literally about their ability to repel Romans (or Mongols). I never said anything about them not being warrior societies but that they would get stomped by Mongols (or any other true warrior society). It was you who sperged out, go read the thread. Idiot.
>someone who thinks that the Mongols managed to land in Japan.Point me to the place where I even said this. I said the Japanese repelled the Mongols, then you said it was the wind.
Are you trying to tell me I am retarded? You should learn to format a post, then get back to me.
>>1218275
The Aztec guy is retarded but the Japanese had little martial involvement with repelling the Mongols. Two miraculous storms did that.
>>1218187
They were quite ferocious and more comfortable in their environment though.
Romans could hardly even imagine a jungle as hot, dense and difficult as central America, even by tales of Africa or far away Asia.
>>1218274
>Our argument is that mock warfare in a limited jungle is not equivalent to genuine, genocidal, continent-spanning campaigns.
That's not an argument, it's a claim--you haven't made the argument yet.
>>1218275
>I never said anything about them not being warrior societies
You said their warrior society was "artificial" because it, I don't know, was limited by the geography and biology of Mezoamerica, and didn't have the opportunity to exert its influence over the Mediterranean basin. I still don't understand why you think it was an "artificial" warrior culture.
> said the Japanese repelled the Mongols, then you said it was the wind.
That's exactly the implication. The Mongols' ships didn't make it to Japan because a storm destroyed them, you implied that the Japanese warrior spirit was what fought them off. I'm calling you historically unaware, or perhaps illiterate. "Retarded" is a strong word, but we're on 4chan, so it's quite likely that you're developmentally stunted in some way.
>>1218283
>Two miraculous storms did that.
Yeah that's the only reason. I highly recommend reading the art of war, if you have not already.
Yes there was a storm, yes it HELPED the Japanese, but the Japanese still took advantage in a proper fashion (they still could have lost their battles even given the Typhoon).
>>1218311
Are you retarded? The Mongols literally never made it to Japan. How many fucking times do you have to be told this?
What does that pic have to do with this?
>>1218316
Where am I saying they did?
>>1218297
>Tales of Africa
You mean the place the conquered the majority of the northern coast of? They could deal with heat.
>>1218299
Okay, fine, here's the argument: the Aztec's "warrior culture" has to be differentiated from the discipline and savagery of the Romans and Mongols somehow. Artificial may not be the best word for that, but it gets the point across. If it was a real warrior culture, the Aztecs would have conquered all of their neighbors or something. Instead they dicked around and attacked for religious quotas. The fuck is that?
>>1218171
Underrated post
>>1218322
You're implying that the Mongols and the Japanese fought pitched battles, and that Japanese tacticians won because the weather was on their side.
>>1218323
>the Aztec's "warrior culture" has to be differentiated from the discipline and savagery of the Romans and Mongols somehow
The Romans and the Mongols had very different war cultures. I don't understand how this is supposed to clarify your point or forward your argument.
>If it was a real warrior culture, the Aztecs would have conquered all of their neighbors or something.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_Empire
What do you think this was?
>>1218324
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_K%C5%8Dan
Youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
are
retarrrrddeeedddd
>>1218297
I doubt environment would that much of an issue for the Romans. Their empire did stretch from the British islands to Egypt.
>>1218337
If their neighbors were conquered, why are they attacking their own people? That changes the argument from whether the Aztecs had a warrior culture to the Aztecs being fucking idiot savages. Of course the Romans would fuck up idiot savages.
>>1218339
Cool, I guess I was wrong about something. It doesn't have much bearing on the issue at hand: the so-called 'artifice' of the Aztec warrior culture.
>>1218346
>If African-Americans are citizens, why do cops shoot so many of them?
>Of course the Romans would fuck up idiot savages
That's what they thought, too, until the barbarians conquered Rome and the Turks conquered Byzantium.
>>1218324
Hell did you even read the link? The first storm happened after The Japanese had repelled the Mongols and took them out DURING RETREAT. The second time they were repelled because they could not land due to the fact that Japs built walls to defend themselves. It was during this time that they got hit by the second typhoon, how is this not at all due to the actions of the Japanese?
This is literally why I am telling you to read AoW. It gives you a much larger insight into the conduct of war. And daily life practices at that.
Just re-iterating, nowhere did I say there was no storms :^).
>>1218337
>You're implying that the Mongols and the Japanese fought pitched battles, and that Japanese tacticians won because the weather was on their side.
This is not what I am saying at all.
>>1218358
Because those African-Americans are criminals you leftist fucking faggot. Why am I not surprised you're one of those liberals that is blind to anything outside his point of view?
>>1218358
Barbarians didn't conquer Rome, shitty social policies did. Any nation falls when you let shithead migrants into your borders.
>>1218369
>Why am I not surprised you're one of those liberals that is blind to anything outside his point of view?
I actually don't take that position, I'm showing you how you sound. The point was that living in a system doesn't make you privileged within the system.
>shitty social policies did
Now you're just being difficult.
>>1218363
Not even that guy but your post heavily implies they fought repeated battles.
It was poorly constructed.
>>1218383
>they fought repeated battles
They did though. Unless of course you think multiple battles are not repeated battles.
>>1218379
Blacks that get shot chose to be thugs. Not the same thing at all.
>>1218395
Oh yeah? Those Spanish conquistadors that succeeded anyhow and weren't Romans like we're talking about?
>>1218379
Not him but relevant
>>1218386
Now you're taking the opposite extreme. Don't do that.
It's not "the same," obviously, but I'm not trying to make them seem like identical situations. I'm trying to demonstrate an obvious and universal principle: Not everyone within the same society enjoys the same rights and privileges. For instance, cops are permitted to shoot criminals if those criminals endanger their lives. Aztec warriors are permitted to take captives for sacrifice.
>>1218403
Did Romans have guns or galleons?
>>1218408
Were the Aztecs as strong 2,000 years ago as they were when Columbus washed up?
>>1218408
It should be noted that there would be a thousand year difference between when the conquistadors conquered America and when the Romans were still around. The Aztecs and other tribes wouldn't have been as well established as in the 1500's among other factors.
>>1218406
Are you stupid? The argument was that the Aztecs were idiot savages because they killed their own by the truckload for superstition. How is that the same as men upholding public order and killing in self-defense?
>>1218410
So you now admit that it was a bad idea to make this shitty thread about fucking comparative military alternate history, a thread that merges the two worst things this board loves with an interesting thing that this board is terrible at doing?
>>1218403
Not him but jungles are fucked up, I'd argue that they're the worse terrain, apart from a desert in a drought. Incredibly dense vegetation slowing movement, parasites and ease of infection in tropical areas, humidity with heat, etc.
>>1218421
>The argument was that the Aztecs were idiot savages because they killed their own by the truckload for superstition.
I don't think the reason is important--slaughtering one's own people by the truckload is always savage.
>>1218429
>slaughtering one's own people by the truckload is always savage.
But this is not what they were doing. You are applying modern-world boarders and logic to the ancient world.
Aztec's didn't sacrifice Aztec's, for all intensive purposes their sacrifices were not 'their' people.
>>1218422
I didn't make the thread, just happened by to correct a wrong faggot. Namely, you.
>>1218429
It's worse than for a remotely defendable reason. At least Vlad scared the Turks away with his serfs' corpses.
>>1218427
You're right, jungles suck to invade. But they would suck no matter who invaded them, see 1900s America. Rome could have taken the Aztecs.
>>1218435
That drags this shit back to my point that their warrior culture is false because they did not conquer their neighbors while pretending to be badasses.
So are we just assuming the Romans would be in central or South America against the Mayans. If it was in North America it would be very different. Even Florida is amazingly tamed compared to the jungles of Central America. Then there's also different groups of people depending on which part of the Amercias you're in.
>>1218435
>for all intensive purposes
>intensive
>>1218435
>You are applying modern-world boarders and logic to the ancient world.
>they killed their own by the truckload for superstition
How is this not an argument against yourself?
>>1218443
>wrong
I was just asking if the Romans had guns and galleons after someone explicitly compared a potential Roman conquest to an actual Spanish conquest. We're talking about Romans conquer Aztecs, not Romans conquering whoever lived in Mexico 2,000 years ago.
>At least Vlad scared the Turks away with his serfs' corpses.
I don't understand how that's any better.
>Rome could have taken the Aztecs.
You just assert this after admitting that the other anon was right about the terrain.
>>1218448
North American natives are beyond a joke. Buffalo fucking nomads, all of them. At least the humidity-niggers had some semblance of infrastructure.
>>1218453
I made a slightly different point building off yours to suit the argumental situation later on. You made the fake culture post originally, yeah.
>>1218457
Wew, my bad.
>>1218458
>You cannot win a battle on difficult terrain
Also, I didn't make both of the points you were contrasting. I was arguing with that guy. At least impaling guys had some practical value, is my point.
>>1218474
>>You cannot win a battle on difficult terrain
I didn't imply that, I implied that you just said "Yes, you're completely right, it would have been very difficult-the Aztecs would have been BTFO anyway."
>At least impaling guys had some practical value, is my point.
Sacrificing those captives made the sun rise, which made the crops grow. Killing all those serfs meant that there were fewer people trying to grow crops. Tell me, who's being productive? ;-)
>>1218476
I did just say that, yes. And I will repeat as accomodation for your head trauma, logistics, tactics, equipment, and experience count for more than terrain.
How many crops do you think would be planted after the Ottomans slaughtered every Slav for miles around? And no, killing the captives did not make the sun rise, as those fucking idiots would have realized if they went more than a couple days without murdering.
>>1218486
>I did just say that, yes
You need to make an argument in support of the claim. I was implying you didn't make a good one, at least not in that post, and probably not elsewhere.
>How many crops do you think would be planted after the Ottomans slaughtered every Slav for miles around?
Those Slavs could have converted to Islam. What was stopping them? Vlad's temper?
>And no, killing the captives did not make the sun rise, as those fucking idiots would have realized if they went more than a couple days without murdering.
You're just judging them by modern standards. There's no good reason to do that. I think they're savages because they murdered so many people. You think they're savages because they didn't know as much about astronomy as we do.
>>1218502
The fact that Islam is an objectively shit system. Find me an Islam majority country that is larger than a fucking US state that isn't an absolute hellhole.
No, I think they're savages for killing people for little reason, or rather for defaulting to murder as a solution for a problem. That makes them faggots, like you.
>>1218510
>The fact that Islam is an objectively shit system.
That wasn't stopping them, though. That didn't stop the billion+ people who have followed Islam.
>or rather for defaulting to murder as a solution for a problem
What do you mean by ''defaulting?"
>>1218510
>>1218524
Not waiting a few fucking weeks to determine if blood actually made the sun rise.
And my point was, DUMB ASS, killing some peasants is worth saving your culture from inferiority and heathenism.
>>1218529
Is this an argument point? Just so I know.
>>1218533
>Not waiting a few fucking weeks to determine if blood actually made the sun rise.
Why would it ever occur to them to do that? Why does seeing the sun rise on 3 consecutive days indicate that it will rise on the 4th?
>And my point was, DUMB ASS, killing some peasants is worth saving your culture from inferiority and heathenism.
Killing a few people from other kingdoms is worth making the sun rise.
How did those peasants feel? You're literally just saying "Vlad the Impaler was a gooboy, he dindu nuffin." I mean, come on. Do you at least understand how edgy you're being?
>>1218536
>Find me an Islam majority country that is larger than a fucking US state that isn't an absolute hellhole.
If you meant "larger" in terms of geographical size and don't want to talk about GDPs at all, then it can't be an argument against you, but you'd be an idiot to not want to talk about GDP.
>>1218555
I just said that so people wouldn't say meme shit like Kuwait. Oil and a tiny population wouldn't count.
>>1218556
>I'd kill my neighbors to keep the Muslims out of my country.
If I ever meet your neighbors I'll let them know that.
>Why would it ever occur to them to kill people to make the sun rise?
I don't know, I'm not familiar with the Aztec scriptures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florentine_Codex
Maybe there's an answer in this article, or in the Codex itself, or in one of the many other works about the Aztec religion.
>>1218560
What?
>>1218556
>Why would it ever occur to them to kill people to make the sun rise?
Because in their mythology, the gods themselves did it first. They all sacrificed themselves in order to make the sun rise to begin with.
"Life is because of the gods; with their sacrifice they gave us life."
"Everything is tonacayotl: the "spiritual flesh-hood" on earth. Everything —earth, crops, moon, stars and people— springs from the severed or buried bodies, fingers, blood or the heads of the sacrificed gods. Humanity itself is macehualli, "those deserved and brought back to life through penance". A strong sense of indebtedness was connected with this worldview. Indeed, nextlahualli (debt-payment) was a commonly used metaphor for human sacrifice, and, as Bernardino de Sahagún reported, it was said that the victim was someone who "gave his service"."
>>1218510
>Find me an Islam majority country that is larger than a fucking US state that isn't an absolute hellhole.
Algeria, Indonesia, Egypt, Turkey, Malaysia
>>1218142
Marcus Aurelius was THIS close to subjugating those filthy fucking barbarians.
Commodus is directly responsible for the falling of the western empire.
>>1218852
Nah bruh, the Antonine plague was what devastated the Roman economy and would lead to decades of strife further down the road.
Commodus just blew the state's rainy day fund on himself, forcing a hostile take over by the military when his successor was too broke to pay off the Praetorians.
>>1218885
I had a dream once where Marcus managed to finish the Marcomannic wars and establish the new Roman frontier on the Vistula and spend the next two centuries romanizing upper germania.
Even now I cry thinking about what could have been.
>>1218161
>South Americans mainly practised in faux-warfare as a means to 'fairly' acquire sacrifices.
Are you literally retarded?
>>1218129
They had trouble controlling their colonies just a stones throw from the mainland in Britannia
Do you really think the empire could manage to take on anymore territory? Let alone territory that exists across a vast ocean in uncharted land?
>>1218923
it still wouldn't have prevented the steppe migrations
>>1218579
>What was the argument again?
I don't remember, but you were the one making it. I'm hardly obliged to remind you.
>My point was that Islam countries are all shitholes, only exceptions being the tiny ones which wouldn't count because their management is inifinitely easier.
Not a very good point. "Shithole" isn't a very good descriptor, it's very vague and implies that you don't know that there were many prosperous and successful Islamic states.
Romans were notoriously shit at sailing anywhere outside the med sea.
>>1221102
They were shit at sailing across the med as well.
Always hugging the coastline.
>>1218171
This is a stupid meme. The
Yuropens absolutely crushed in confrontations. Sure, disease helped. But it wasn't remotely necessary
>>1218129
16th century Spain had extreme difficulty doing so. The only advantage Romans would have over that is an organized army. If anything, Romans, would only trade.
Something to add; whether through racism, irgnorance, or a combination people really, really, REALLY tend to greatly underestimate the sophistication and strength of New World cultures. You could replace the word Roman with Aztec in a Romaboo thread and be spot on.
>>1222010
>Sure, disease helped. But it wasn't remotely necessary
It undoubtedly was.
>>1222038
How do you know? Europe didn't exactly exhaust their resources on this, it was an overwhelmingly easy conquest all things considered, and not a single thing suggests it wouldn't have been without the disease. Europe was vastly technologically superior, and they had god on their side
>>1222045
> Europe didn't exactly exhaust their resources on this
The thing is, sending people to the new world was a logistic nightmare. It took several months to make the trip. You couldn't convince most of your soldiers to go. The people who did were mostly sordid characters out for riches or religious fanatics. These countries physically COULD NOT bring most of their resources to the new world. Fighting a war on your continent is way different than fighting a war halfway across the world.
It was the good fortune (for the europeans) that by merely introducing themselves to the natives they brought with them something that caused complete societal collapse among the native people. The Europeans defeated people whose nations were already in shambles. We're talking from 25-30 million people reduced to 3 million mostly from disease alone. This is what made it possible for the small contingents that were able to shipped all the way from Europe with only the supplies they brought with them sufficient to conquer the new world.
It has been reasonably argued that the Europeans didn't defeat the natives, disease did.
>>1218134
>Mongols could have.
>this fucking meme again
I wish you mongolboos would fuck off already.
Nearly every time there has been a naval battle between mongols and somebody else, they got wrecked
>>1222082
But muh superior White race.
It's not a question of could, but would.
Of course they Could have done, the Romans were exceedingly rich during Pax Romana, they could have engineered ships, sent thousands if not tens of thousands to the Americas, and established colonies there which would have grown. If the Romans really wanted to, they could have colonised the Americas.
But why Would they? For what purpose?
The Romans would get turbo rekt because they would deal not only with the Aztecs but Incas and prime Mayas
Also they would not be able to deal with the jungle, not only because the natives would be more adapted to the terrain but they would get fucked by the weather, animals, insects and parasites
>>1218176
Dude, the aztecs weren't even around when the Roman Empire still existed as a single faction. Man, the Oxfort university is older than the aztec empire. Same with the incas. The only famous culture that were around was the mayas, but there were also some warrior cultures in south america.
>>1222095
>mongols couldn't have beaten the native americans at naval combat
>mongols couldn't have beaten the mesoamericans at naval combat
WuT? Did Indians and Mesoamericans even have anything close to a navy?
>>1218129
nope. too focused on maintaining what they already had
Probably not, given the ships of the time. But are we assuming that they have ships capable of making the voyage? I still very much doubt it. Colonisation of the new world was very much a private enterprise for its early stages, with occasional support from the crown and central government of various colonising states. I can't see the Roman government haven't the time, inclination or resources to dedicate to pro-actively colonising the new world - they had too many domestic concerns in maintaining their Empire back home. Here's where I must profess ignorance, did Romans have much in the way of private enterprise that could have done this?
I know Republican era figures like Crassus could fund their own armies and little military adventures - but could this have been done during the Empire? I can't see the Emperors looking too kindly on people using their private wealth to raise armies.
>>1218274
The Romans failed against the tribalist Germans, the largest mesoamerican aliances were every bit as big as the hoard that desroyed Varus' column
>>1222082
Cortez says otherwise.
Before establishing contact with the Aztecs, Cortez sent a scout party of a dozen men to survey the land. On the way back the party was ambushed by hostile natives. The natives lost around 50 men, before deciding to flee, while the spanish lost none and they could not use their guns because the powder got wet and was ruined. Then in subsequent battles with the aid of firearms and horses the conquistadors were able to take on armies 10x their size, except for the aztecs themselves.
sf
>>1218129
If they had ships decent enough to get there, if they sent a large enough force that stayed there for multiple years, if disease didn't wipe out too many of their men and if they didn't have any issues back on the homefront that distracted them too much then yes they could have but thats a lot of hypotheticals
>>1218129
>Could the Mongols at their peak at 1279 defeat the Roman Empire at their peak for every category (Territory, Army, Technology, etc).
>If the Romans had known about the new world, could they have conquered a significant portion of it?
What's with all the shit threads?
>>1222082
>It has been reasonably argued that the Europeans didn't defeat the natives, disease did.
This is reasonable.
It has NOT been reasonably argued that europe COULDN'T defeat the natives, if disease didn't.
Sure, they're outnumbered in an inconvenient way, it'd take a lot longer, but they wouldn't need to exhaust the entire population in armed conflict, just like we wouldn't use our entire population in a hopeless war against aliens whose technology we had NO chance of beating, we'd surrender sooner than later.
>>1224251
This board went to shit sometime around the end of February.
>>1224251
Underage redditors
>>1224251
I was almost going to make similar threads just to make them realize how shitty these type of topics are. Something along the likes of:
>If the Babylonians knew about Australia could they conquer a significant part of Madagascar?
>>1222010
>Kill literally 90% of populations in some places, the rest died from hunger, slave work or racemixed
>sickness not helping
Check la conquista de arauco in Chile. Somehow the mapuches didnt die off from plagues (maybe the polynesian genestock) and put a hell of a fight cucking spaniards till no end impeding the proper anexation of Chile' s till 1850's
Even the fucking Incaic rump state was able to repel Spaniards for a hundred years
>>1218957
Maybe they could have been easier to repel with a bigger empire and better knowledge of the steppe politics and warfare, without the germanics forming part of the horde
>>1218129
There would be nothing to conquer, merely to settle there and ignore ultra-primitive natives or enslave them. But why do it, the world was still big enough in the time of Romans.
>>1226237
>sickness not helping
I said the sickness helped
>>1226289
>bigger empire
>Roman Empire
>make bigger
Yeah
>>1226311
I think that there were pre mayan civs with aztec tier tech.
