If the Romans had known about the new world, could they have conquered a significant portion of it?

If the Romans had known about the new world, could they have conquered a significant portion of it?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_war
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze_(typhoon)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_Empire
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kōan
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florentine_Codex
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

How would they even get there? Their nautical engineering was garbage tier except for the palace ships.

Depends on whether or not they could build and maintain supply chains.

Mongols could have.

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.

They couldn't even land in Japan

Couldn't even conquer Germania and it was right on their doorstep.

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.

Hell no.

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.

>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.

Would Aztecs be more or less awful to fight against than the Germanic tribes?

>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.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_war

Their whole warrior culture is based around how many captives they bring back from battle... To sacrifice..

Probably easier. I mean they didn't even have iron working by the time Columbus showed up.

>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.

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.

Well, I'm not talking about their ability to repel Romans, I'm simply implying that war and warriors were integral to their culture.

Exactly this 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?

What, but I never even said they were not a warrior society, but that their warrior society was essentially fake.

why would they have? that's like the turks colonizing

>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 , 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.

>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?

"warfare"

Our argument is that mock warfare in a limited jungle is not equivalent to genuine, genocidal, continent-spanning campaigns.

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.

The Aztec guy is retarded but the Japanese had little martial involvement with repelling the Mongols. Two miraculous storms did that.

See You are now attempting to argue with 2 anons. It's pretty dam straight forward.

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.

>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.
>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 Veeky Forums, so it's quite likely that you're developmentally stunted in some way.

>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).

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?

Where am I saying they did?

>Tales of Africa

You mean the place the conquered the majority of the northern coast of? They could deal with heat.

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?

Here's a fucking link because you're so goddamn useless
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze_(typhoon)
This shit gets discussed on Veeky Forums every other day, how are you not aware of this remarkable occurrence?

Underrated post

You're implying that the Mongols and the Japanese fought pitched battles, and that Japanese tacticians won because the weather was on their side.

>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.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_Empire
What do you think this was?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kōan

Youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
are
retarrrrddeeedddd

I doubt environment would that much of an issue for the Romans. Their empire did stretch from the British islands to Egypt.

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.

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.
>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.

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 :^).

>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.

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?

Barbarians didn't conquer Rome, shitty social policies did. Any nation falls when you let shithead migrants into your borders.

>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.

Not even that guy but your post heavily implies they fought repeated battles.

It was poorly constructed.

>they fought repeated battles
They did though. Unless of course you think multiple battles are not repeated battles.

Blacks that get shot chose to be thugs. Not the same thing at all.

Please read the accounts of the spanish conquistadors in America, tropical jungle was fucking hellish in comparison to the dry heat and cold

Oh yeah? Those Spanish conquistadors that succeeded anyhow and weren't Romans like we're talking about?

Not him but relevant

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.

Did Romans have guns or galleons?

Were the Aztecs as strong 2,000 years ago as they were when Columbus washed up?

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.

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?

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?

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.

>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.

>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.

I didn't make the thread, just happened by to correct a wrong faggot. Namely, you.

It's worse than for a remotely defendable reason. At least Vlad scared the Turks away with his serfs' corpses.

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.

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.

>to my point that their warrior culture is false
That's my point though, I am . And that's besides the point anyway.

>for all intensive purposes
>intensive

>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?
>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 user was right about the terrain.

North American natives are beyond a joke. Buffalo fucking nomads, all of them. At least the humidity-niggers had some semblance of infrastructure.

I made a slightly different point building off yours to suit the argumental situation later on. You made the fake culture post originally, yeah.

Wew, my bad.

>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.

>>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? ;-)

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.

>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.

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.

>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?"

...

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.

Is this an argument point? Just so I know.

>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?

>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.

I'd kill my neighbors to keep the Muslims out of my country.

Why would it ever occur to them to kill people to make the sun rise?

I just said that so people wouldn't say meme shit like Kuwait. Oil and a tiny population wouldn't count.

>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.
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.

What?

What was the argument again? Remind me so I can continue dismantling 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.

>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"."

>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

Marcus Aurelius was THIS close to subjugating those filthy fucking barbarians.

Commodus is directly responsible for the falling of the western empire.

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.

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.

>South Americans mainly practised in faux-warfare as a means to 'fairly' acquire sacrifices.
Are you literally retarded?

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?

it still wouldn't have prevented the steppe migrations

>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.

They were shit at sailing across the med as well.
Always hugging the coastline.

No, the Roman Empire itself was already big enough and difficult to manage for the Romans. They simply didn't have the technology at that time to manage a big empire. Also there was no need to expand further, they already owned Egypt.

This is a stupid meme. The
Yuropens absolutely crushed in confrontations. Sure, disease helped. But it wasn't remotely necessary

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.

>Sure, disease helped. But it wasn't remotely necessary

It undoubtedly was.

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

> 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.