Was Roman Empire a superpower?
>>1006606
In the context of the ancient world, yes. It was an unchallenged hegemony in Europe matched only by Persia and China.
>>1006644
>only by Persia
Even then Persia never really was an existential threat to Rome; they were just too powerful to be subdued and could put up a good fight due to their (relatively) large size.
I'd say Rome is one of the few examples of an actual hyperpower existing in its context. They more or less controlled the entire "classical" world - few other polities can claim such absolute dominion of an area.
>>1006606
It only became a power, or really relevant in any way once it had embraced Christianity.
>>1006606
nah
>>1006799
Its the opposite though, embracing christianity was part of the decline of the roman empire
>>1006799
Nice meme
>>1006808
>>1006821
Care to refute? they only became a power even worthy of recognition once they had abandoned their pagan degeneracy.
>>1006860
They done most of empire building before Christianity even become a thing and it only become one because of Rome that provided united cultural space for it to spreads
>>1006860
Pagan degeneracy is what made rome great
>>1006860
I love how they used a dumb smelly balding manlet to represent the /pol/tard , only thing correct about the picture.
Also Quintilian is North African of course niggers were common there as slaves, nothing strange there.
>>1006860
.. how does that have anything to do with its military-political might?
>>1006606
Considering the actual range of power projection possible at their technological power, they were actually a hyperpower. The only country who might actually have a chance at doing more than get rekt by them (the Han) was wholly outside engagement range.
>>1006681
>they were just too powerful to be subdued
But Rome subdued them a whole 5 times. It's not that they were too powerful as much as they were too far to actually be governable from Rome. Reaction times were simply too inadequate at those distances.
>>1006606
According to writers like Goldsworthy it is the super-est of superpowers. It faced no distinct rival on any of its borders and was unparalleled in terms of prestige, military power and sophisticated. The Persians were the only other relatively sophisticated power anywhere near them and they were never anywhere near as strong. It was more Roman idiocy and distraction that stopped Persia ever coming into their sphere of influence.
>>1007663
>Butt Rome subdued them a whole 5 times.
No they didn't.
>>1006606
The world Superpower gets thrown a lot but I'm going to stick to the Modern definition which is a major power which could exert military, political and economic influence across the entire globe.
By that definition, it's not a superpower.
However, I have no doubt it was a Great Power and a hegemon.
>>1008223
That's dumb and you're dumb.
Most of the known world was under their direct control, it's the equivalent of somebody controlling the entirety of Eurasia and Africa today, while having a ridiculous amount of soft power on all the remaining continents.
>>1006681
Quite hillarious how The Romans nearly conquered Persia two Times only to be cucked by Iraqis both Times
>>1008263
When did the Romans conquer Persia?
>>1008175
Yes, they did. The parthians were defeated and their capital Ctesiphon burned down a whopping five times between Trajan and the Sassanids.
I'd rate the toppling of the monarchy and instauration of a puppet king as subduing them, wouldn't you?
>>1008388
>Yes, they did.
No.
>The parthians were defeated
The Parthians are not the Persians. And Roman presence in Parthia was only temporary at best, why do you think Hadrian pulled out, moron?
>their capital Ctesiphon was burned down
Sacked and captured isn't burning down and this still failed to end the Arsacid dynasty by Roman hands.
>I'd rate the toppling of the monarchy
The Romans never toppled the Arsacids, the Sassanids did.
>inauguration of a puppet king as subduing them, wouldn't you?
Who didn't last. And the Roman army pulled out by Trajan as he got sicked lost more men to Parthian ambushes, raiding parties, and sneak attacks then the whole war to the point four legions worth of men were killed within 6 months.
The Romans also never made it into actual Iranian heartlands. So no, Rome never conquered Parthians or Persians.
>>1008427
Hadrian pulled out not of defeat but because it just wasn't worth holding this arbitrary line in the sand when they were just going to keep fighting for it
same reason why much of the territory over the danube was abandoned, the germans were just going to keep coming and staying on the other side was a natural defence
>>1008388
Parthia isn't Persia, and despite Parthia being on the losing end of multiple wars with Rome, the Romans were never EVER able to hold any major territory from the Parthians. Trajan failed to even get to the actual Iranian plateau and the mountain areas leading from Mesopotamia into Iran and the Caucasus literally checked any advanced the Romans made.
>Ctesiphon burned down
Ctesiphon was sacked twice and occupied once under the Parthian Empire. It was never burnt down by the Romans or Byzantines. Also on the point of putting a puppet king in power? Parthamaspates only lasted a year before he was removed from power.
Osroes was able to take back his throne and make Trajan's usurper flee.
>>1008450
>Hadrian pulled out not of defeat
Trajan did. He over extended his lines, strained Roman economy and resources maintaining his campaign that far east of traditional Roman boarders and he was losing legions who were garrsioned inside of Parthian boarders.
Hadrian pulled out because he knew couldn't hold the territory and that Trajan was a moron who was taxing the empire beyond its capabilities.
>sand
>Iranian Mesopotamia
Was typically more urbanized and developed then Roman Mesopotamia. Get over it, the Romans were not able to realistically occupy the area they took from Parthia which is why Hadrian was smart enough to recognize Osroes as the ruler of the Parthian Empire and returned almost the entirety of Trajan's gains because he knew it was too much for the Romans to hold onto.
>>1008376
They tried to multiple times, and planned and prepared for it more than that.
>>1008132
The Inca Empire would also fit that bill.
Spanish empire ... donkeys
>>1008839
Failing isn't succeeding.
>>1008235
India and China remained the biggest thing throughout history. Roman empire controlled the tiny Europe and parts of Mediterranean. Persia was a great buffer.
The Roman empire at its height probably controlled 1/4th of the known world. China and India controlled more than 3/5 of the entre world for millenias. If Roman empire were super powers then the other two would be hypermega powers.
>>1009013
Most of the people who lived in that "empire" didn't even know they were a part of it.
>>1009013
>Japan
>>1008263
>only to be cucked by Iraqis
How about actually verbalizing what happened instead of using useless meme words like cuck. Fucking Christ.
>>1009182
"The figure of the samurai, fierce warriors of ancient Japanese empire, is wrapped in an authentic aura of legend that shows how men she was nearly impossible to defeat. However, the fact is that these fighters not only were not invincible, but were defeated by the Spanish Armada "... you donkey
>>1009162
India was never really unified.
>>1009265
so when was japan conquered by spain?
>>1009298
Learn a little, Spain defeated the Japanese ... had a lot of territory to cover
>>1009314
so when was japan conquered by spain?
>>1009324
The United States also was Spain
>>1006799
>>1009314
>>1006799
Top bait xD
Rome should have raised a city in the far east to be on the same footing as Constantinople and Rome that would serve as the administation center in the East. Milan was being developed as the capital in Italy, and Trier was the imperial capital that was to govern gaul and germania, they needed another one in the east that could command the manpower and resources to push further east. As mentioned, the time lag was almost always romes downfall.
>>1009601
So what you're saying is they just should have set up camp in Ctesiphon.
>>1009601
A fortified city with a strong administration was a must in most of the outlying territories, but it seems instead of transforming them, some they just kept mostly the same to please the locals... really they should have been more proactive about Romanizing.
Also there was a huge need for more concrete/stone forts to command the outer territories in some frontiers, you can subdue even the most hardiest foe eventually through fortifications, we know they had the technology.. they held back the Ancient Scots with a wall and huge stone forts, but didn't bother so much in even more important regions like Germania (wood forts are garbage they burn too easy) and the East..
Forts give your armies a base of operations, somewhere to retreat to, somewhere to go if things get bad and the enemy cannot continue until they take you out, because otherwise you would be behind their flank, this buys time to get the legions to that area and take on the enemy who is already worn out from siege, just look at how many armies got defeated while besieging a city or fort, it wears them down fast.
Hadrian knew what he was doing, the one's that came after him didn't build enough, you have to consolidate territory and don't take for granted it will be safe .
>>1009679
Not just set up camp, but elevate the city to an imperial one with walls and all and roman colonization. (Though they were probably worried about native revolts, especially with cities with walls)
>>1009684
Germany right before the western side of the empire was shocked and collapsed was going through an extensive regional fortification project which would have brought the region to heel with Trier as the capital. Problem is, the west was 20-30 years slower to implement the fortifications, with only the Saxon Shore finished. They really loved the British isles for some reason, and wanted them to never leave. It was to be connected with gaul through those fortifications.
Also, I doubt most other people had the capacity to siege like the romans did. Romans had extensive supply networks, professional troops, and the technology to fuck shit up.
>>1009601
>build a city in hostile territory while overstretching Rome's already sparsely garrisoned legions in foreign lands
>Also I doubt most other people had the capacity to siege like the romans did
The Persians did. Why do you think Tacticus says they were the greatest enemies because they fought like Romans did with "skill of command and generalship".
>>1009684
You might have forgotten that forts cost a mint of money to build and maintain, and the imperial budget was stretched thin already. Hadrian's successors were all occupied with war and pestilence too.
>>1009786
How do you think Rome controlled Britain? They settled a veteran legion in Ebecorum (York) which served to pacify the region and elevate the city so that it was heavily invested in by the local populace and Romans alike. Im sure you dont think the british isles was overstretching the romans sparsely garrisoned legions in foreign lands?
York would also give rise to two of the greatest stabilizing emperors in the late empire phase.
>>1009805
Are you comparing a fractured England with dozens of interwarring tribes with the centralized cohesive Sassanid Empire?
Do you know what happened the first time Rome tried this? They lost three Emperors against Shapur. Even Alexander Severus suffered a humilitating defeat right on the outskirts of Ctesiphon. You seem to have no idea what the difference between comparing divided tribals with a strong Persian society.
>>1009805
>Ebecorum
Kek, you mean Eburacum
>>1009812
How do you think the Persians coalesced into a state? They were allowed to operate with impunity on the borders of rome for too long centralizing. When the Muslims shattered the Sassanids with humiliating defeats their empire quickly ate itself.
Rome benefited the most from its urban populations. They provided reliable legionaries, and would be groomed for government. It may have been difficult, but creating an eastern imperial city would have secured rome the ability to expand further east, or exert control. Constantinople secured Asia Minor and the Danube. Trier secured Germania/Gaul (in theory, it was still being developed before the system collapsed), etc.
>>1009601
>Rome should have raised a city in the far east to be o nthe same footing as Constantiniple
Why would they do that? They already tried that with Caesarea in Central Anatolia and Shapur destroyed most of the city to symbolically shit on the Romans and deported almost the entirety of its population in chains back into Sassanid territory. The Romans never attempted to raise a new city after this and typically, they raised their legions in the West, not the East.
What your harping on is unrealistic.
>>1009862
>How do you think the Persians caolesced into a state?
With nothing to do with Rome in the first place.
>They were allowed to operate with impunity on the borders of Rome for too long centralizing.
You have zero idea of what you are talking about. Ardashir aggressively gained his independence from Artabanus, won territory, eventually overthrew the Arsacid dynasty killing Artabanus, expanded westwards and took more of Mespotamia while the Romans were unable to do more then hold onto and check his advance into Roman Levant.
>Muslims
Have zero relevance to the discussion of your autistic what if scenario regarding an asinine claim the Romans building a city deep in Persian territory would magically survive much less let them defeat the Persians.
>Rome benefited the most from urban populations.
So did every other major settled society. And you are still wrong because the majority of Roman soldiers were produced in Italy, Gaul and Hispania. Not in Greece, not in North Africa, not in Anatolia or the Levant.
>>1009862
Romans never secured Germania, which is why they had more then eight legions at anyone time after Varus' defeat across the Rhine standing watch because they were that scared of Germanic tribes crossing down into Roman lands.
Now again explain your position on overstretching the coffers of the Roman Empire, the already sparsely garrisoned active Legions in the Roman military, and how an expedition well beyond traditional Roman boarders with the Persians would magically gain a new city and enable the defeat of the Persians.
>>1009013
>japan
>greece
>levant and scoops of north africa
what
>>1006813
Fuck of Gibbon.
Pretty sure the century of civil war before the Tetrarchy didn't help them.
Diocletian had some good reforms, but the combination of him making professions hereditary and Constantine fixing the gold standard but allowing hyperinflation in silver and copper coins pretty much set the stage for feudalism.
That has nothing to do with Christianity. If Constantine had been a good Christian and not killed his only experience heir and left the Empire with not line of succession, things would have gone better.
>>1006860
Do they take that passage to mean that they shouldn't associate with dark skinned people? Kek
>>1006606
Picts were GOAT.
>>1009162
You can hardly say China and India controlled 3/5 of the known world, especially not for fucking millenia. India was never once unified and China very rarely so. Neither of them so much as touched the centralized power of Rome, with the exception of Ming at a stretch.
>>1010561
You're argument is based on the fact that these other powers didn't touch Rome and Rome didn't touch them so therefore Rome is better.
Not the guy you are replying to, but that's pretty retarded.
>>1007663
Alexander the Great conquered Persia which led to a Hellenized state with a Macedon dynasty. The fact Rome couldnt make Persia a puppet or series of Puppet is a testament to the strength of the region. And by the end, the last non-muslim Persian dynasty was at the gates of Constantinople.
>>1010568
No it isn't, it's based on the fact that there was never a Chinese or Indian state which was as centralized as Rome. Throughout history China and India were both a collection of smaller states, or in China's case governments with very loose control. You're arguing that India and China were bigger than Rome when in reality neither had the same capabilities. China or India were never ruled by one senate or emperor (other than under Ming for a relatively brief period) in any capacity other than name. The Roman senate could exert its influence to every corner of its empire and beyond, China or India never had the capabilities to do this.
3/5 of the world existed in China and India, it does not mean they controlled it.
>>1010738
>You're arguing that India and China were bigger than Rome when in reality neither had the same capabilities.
You missed the part where I said I wasn't the guy you were arguing with.
>Rome being a complete unified power at all times
>not retarded.
>>1010568
i think he meant "touch" in a non literal sense
>>1010740
I never said at all times but generally until well after the beginning of its decline in 300AD they pretty much had the ability to exert their authority to any part of the empire.
>>1010738
Han China was more centralized than Rome ever was.
And Ashoka era India was pretty much nearly all of the Indian sub-continent.
>>1010754
>shifting goal posts with an anon who isn't even the original anon.
Come now.
>the height of the Roman empire at the same time was stronger than that of the Indian and Chinese powers
>not judging the apex of all three nations evenly
>not retarded
>>1010599
Hellenization never took with the Persians.
>>1010754
You're not factoring in the massive population differences, which undoubtedly makes China at its peak far more powerful than Rome
>>1010771
It doesn't work that way. You can conscript a million peasants into an ad hoc army, but that doesn't make them actually effective against seasoned soldiers.
>>1010762
What was the apex of China? Of India? Could they have ever matched Rome?
And I'm not shifting the goal posts desu, the argument is just not very clear as different people are replying with different interpretations of my original post. I'm not even sure what I'm arguing at this point. I just know that Rome as an empire was never matched from India or China.
>>1010775
>inb4 korean war
>>1010239
Hur dur I get my values from a kike on a stick
>>1010780
>What was the apex of China? Of India? Could they have ever matched Rome?
Neither could Rome, advance and attack either of those territories.
>>1010780
>I just know that Rome as an empire was never matched from India or China.
You have a bias. I honestly do not even know why people think Rome was so great, they did pretty much fuck all in the global scheme of things. I honestly believe it's ancient white power sorta thing. Never mind the fact that 1 in every 200 men today are directly descended from Genghis Khan, never mind that the Muslims created the basis of our modern numeric system, never mind the fact the Chinese created gun powder. It's all about dem Romans.
>>1010804
Republicanism and later imperialism has affected humanity far more than any invention east of the Ganges besides paper.
>>1010801
Well one of the main reasons Rome couldn't do that is because they couldn't even maintain or handle deploying deep into Parthian/Persian territory, India and China would've been impossible for them.
>>1010766
Maybe if the Seleucids had more stability. And we don't know what the Greco-Bactrians and Indian states were like. I read some where they got more Greek migration then history thought.
>>1010801
I'm not saying that faggot. None of them had an empire that had the relative power of Rome. Total and unmatched control of their sphere of power.
>>1010804
Rome set the foundation for the states that would inherit the earth. Nothing came from Mongolia except shitty khanates. Muslims haven't been relevant since the Ottomans declined. China is the only one that's was somewhat a match for Europe, but China's discovery of gunpowder is irrelevant when the steam engine came from Europe.
Come back to me when a Chinese gunboat shoots its way up the Thames and forces the English to sell opium in the streets.
>>1010829
Seleucids were unpopular and had a highly ineffectual reign over Iranians precisely because they were Greeks/Macedonians in the first place.
>>1010822
Plain wrong. These were not even 'inventions' of Rome either.
>>1006606
>"Superpower is a word used to describe a state with a dominant position in international relations and which is characterised by its unparalleled ability to exert influence or project power on a global scale" - wikipedia
>Was Roman Empire a superpower?
>"Global Scale"
The answer is no
>>1010846
>>1010840
>>1010835
>>1010813
>>1010812
>>1010785
>>1010781
>>1010856
Rome was the closest we've come to a superpower before Britain in the 19th century.
>>1010873
Ehh that's debatable. Speaking in terms of relatively what was the known world by major eras, the first one could be argued to be the Achaemenid Persian Empire; more then 44% of the entire population under their control and dominion and covering three continents.
I'd say the Persian Empire, Alexander's Empire, the Roman Empire, Neo-Persian/Sassanid Empire, and Mongol Empire are all decent candidates for older "superpowers".
>>1010919
Fair points. Not sure about the Sassanids though.
Rome definitely had the longest lasting and most impactful legacy too.
>>1010936
Over 20% of the population and able to win as many wars against the Romans and Byzantines as they were against them. I'd say they have a fair placement in there, coupled with the Arsacids/Parthians before them, they were Rome and Byzantine's greatest rivals for nearly 8 centuries nonstop.
Anyway thanks for responding.
>>1010599
>The fact Rome couldnt make Persia a puppet
They did several times, though it was through support of a claimant during a civil war and naturally short-lived.
>>1011704
Rome never did that with the Persians. You are once again making the same mistake another poster did confusing the Arsacids with the Sassanids. And even with the Arsacids it never panned out.
Persia was never a puppet state for Rome. Neither was Parthia.
>>1011733
I'm not mistaking the Parthians with the Persians, but the former ruled the latter during the Arsacid dynasty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthamaspates_of_Parthia
Keyword here is "short-lived" my point wasn't that it worked in any way, but that it had been done, even if his rule was entirely nominal.
>>1011791
That doesn't explain anything. Another anon already mentioned Parthamaspates not being recongized by Orsoes or his subjects and Hadrian acknowledged this the moment Roman forces were forced to retreat from Iranian lands.
There was never a Parthian puppet state. There was a failed attempt at making a puppet ruler when Orsoes was temporarily removed from the throne but nothing else.
>>1010568
No, you're pretty retarded for lacking basic reading comprehension at your age mate.
>>1009013
>>1009265
>>1009314
>>1009337
>>1006813
I can't people seriously still believe this, after everything people like Peter Brown have done to disprove it.
![Laughing-Then-Crying-Gif-Tumblr-08[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/2sC3CrK.gif "Laughing-Then-Crying-Gif-Tumblr-08[1].gif")
>>1010789
>>1009601
Diocletian established Nikomedia as his capital.
>>1006606
No. Superpower is a term specifically used to describe the post WWII-situation where the USA and USSR were far more powerful than any other country. It's not really applicable before 1945 or after 1991.
>>1009599
lol wtf is this from
>>1009914
They should have just went for it and sent ten legions and an equal number of eastern auxiliaries into Germania. Conquer it up to the Elbe and run the border through the middle of Bohemia and down to Pannonia.
>>1009601
>what is Antioch
The following cities should have become imperial command centres with a field army of 30,000 men under a local caesar, who reports to the augustus in Rome.
Trier - Germania/Gaul/Britain
Sirmium - Dalmatia/Pannonia
Thessalonika - Thrace/Greece
Nikomedia - Anatolia/Armenia
Antioch - Syria/Judea/Egypt
The augustus in Rome would retain control of Italy, Africa, and Spain, and would have control over three army groups, two of 30,000 men, and one of 20,000 men.
>>1006606
what kind of discussion are you trying to achieve with such a dumb question?
>>1013055
If it was that easy they would've done it in the first place. Germania was frightening for the Romans, it was heavily forested, cold, prone to extremely harsh winters with heavy snow, not very open to make use of set piece battles with those huge unwieldy formations, etc...
Also Roman soldiers can be superstitious and the loss of several Eagle standards and the fact the Germanics under Arminus turned the dead of Varus three legions into a shrine site didn't help.
>>1013280
>Split up the Roman empire into 6, that'll work!
What do you think happened to the Tetrarchy once Diocletian was dead as a door-nail?
>>1013444
Diocletian was retarded, he let the caesars run free and did nothing to stop Christianity. The caesars need troops, but the augustus needs more to be able to keep them under control. Park 80,000 men in Italy and no usurpers are getting near Rome.
>>1013431
So cut down the forests, the Franks did it easy enough once they had control of Germany and Gaul. The Roman army was much different in Diocletian's time, it could have handled the task. The problem was that legions were constantly being withdrawn and lost in needless civil wars.
>>1013522
Germania was not as defensible as the Rhine fortresses that Rome had in place. So long as that border was well-equipped and manned, the Germanic barbarians couldn't do shit.
I am surprised that despite the full might of the Empire, they could never subjugate Persia which had nowhere near the territory or manpower. Though Persia was insanely wealthy from trade and craftsmanship. Not to mention having access to all those mineral resources in Central Asia.
>>1013564
The Germans penetrated the limes on numerous occasions, but then what do you expect when all you build to hold them back are wooden watchtowers and wooden forts. They should have built a stone wall all along the entirety of the Rhine-Danube border and then placed some stone forts behind it for good measure.
The Elbe was Augustus' original target, it would have been as good of a boundary.
>>1013564
>I am surprised that despite the full might of the Empire, they could never subjugate Persia.
Because Persia was insanely wealthy, resource heavy, and had a similar sized population while utilizing a way of warfare that was most effective against Roman's heavy infantry style armies?
>nowhere near the territory or manpower
I'm pretty sure the Sassanid Empire was far more populated and larger then Germania and most of Northern Europe for that matter.
