Originally posted by Monash
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Apres Cannae
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostAmled, sure you know that number is not just for the city, but for the territory of the entire old Roman Kingdom. During the Punic wars, I doubt Rome (the city) even had 250K souls in it, let alone 250K men.
An acquaintance, a retired archeologist replied to my inquiry that being outside of his area of expertise, any population figure would be as contentious as the ones already fielded, but he did focus in on the amount of water the aqueducts delivered. That 250,0000m3 per day was more then The City itself needed, that a surplus was lead of to the surrounding countryside, maybe even used for irrigation.
This being before large scale grain imports, Rome was still dependent on agricultural imports from its surrounding farms to feed itself. Probably why less then 50 years after Hannibal they were obliged to construct another aqueduct to double their intake yet again.
I fully agree with the consensus here on the thread, that after Cannae the rest of the campaign in central an southern Italy was simply a large scale smash and grab raid. to sap Rome’s strength and will to fight. This being so, my contention was simply why not take out the aqueducts? The chaos in the city and disruption to the agriculture, would surly be; seen from Hannibal’s side, a good ting.
This being said, another question arises. During Hannibal campaign I Central Italy, he must surely have seen the aqueduct towers, especially when he turned north towards Rome. Then being the canny warlord he undoubtedly was, why didn’t he take them out?When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow. - Anais Nin
Comment
-
Why didn't he take the aqueducts out?
I doubt anyone can say for sure but part of the answer may lie in the ancient conception of war and the purposes for it and acceptable means for the conduct of it which is vastly different from ours today. To them war was about armies fighting each other in the field and who controlled the field at the end of the day - a proof of superior virtue as they saw it which justified their cause - not about destroying infrastructure. It's quite likely that destroying important infrastructure would be seen as barbarian and ignoble and therefore prove counter productive. It's one thing to kill the enemy that challenge you in the field but quite another to destroy a water supply. Pyrrhus was regarded as second only to Alexander (his cousin) not because he won wars but because he won all the battles he fought in the field.
Comment
-
Originally posted by snapper View PostI doubt anyone can say for sure but part of the answer may lie in the ancient conception of war and the purposes for it and acceptable means for the conduct of it which is vastly different from ours today. To them war was about armies fighting each other in the field and who controlled the field at the end of the day - a proof of superior virtue as they saw it which justified their cause - not about destroying infrastructure. It's quite likely that destroying important infrastructure would be seen as barbarian and ignoble and therefore prove counter productive...
But then I remembered Alexander himself ordered that plague filled bodies be catapulted into besieged cities.
Also a little digging revealed that even the Romans used to poison wells to weaken their enemies.
There’s a moral there or something.
They are both remembered as archetypes. Maybe that’s because they didn’t acknowledge the rules.
http://www.penn.museum/documents/pub...-1/fleming.pdfWhen we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow. - Anais Nin
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostAmled, sure you know that number is not just for the city, but for the territory of the entire old Roman Kingdom. During the Punic wars, I doubt Rome (the city) even had 250K souls in it, let alone 250K men.
Also, Rome might be good on water, but how much food they had stored?No such thing as a good tax - Churchill
To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.
Comment
-
While I recognise Alexanders use of dead bodies this was not destruction of infrastructure (as we'd call it today) in itself nor is the poisoning of wells. Ravaging crops etc was seen to be fair game if nobody would come out to fight - the purpose of ravaging crops was to persuade the owners to come and fight but not to keep the land. In the Peloponnesian War the Spartans destroyed the Athenian crops year after year without forcing them to fight as they could rely on naval supply of food. Did they stop the natural water supply? No because the purpose was to bring them battle in a staged confrontation.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Doktor View Post250BC for 250k souls is doable, 500k is not. Near the begining of the new age, Rome had cca 900k popultion. You should take into consideration that in this century the population skyrocketed due to various political games.
Also, Rome might be good on water, but how much food they had stored?
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostIIRC, during this period it was only men of property who were legionaires, mostly small farmersNo such thing as a good tax - Churchill
To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.
Comment
-
Since Hannibal never put Rome under close siege the city was free to import additional food stuffs as required from wherever they could source it, be it by ship up the coast to Ostia or overland via whatever routes weren't cut off by Hannibal's army. No doubt they paid a 'risk premium' for the privilege at the time (merchants being merchants) but the inconvenience was temporary.Last edited by Monash; 11 Jul 14,, 14:23.If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.
Comment
-
Regarding the water supply, the two aquaeducts supplying Rome at the time were Appia and Anio Vetus. The Appia, the first aquaeduct of Rome, ran almost entirely underground, the Anio Vetus only received above-ground structures in later rebuilding - under Augustus and Hadrian, primarily. The Appia in particular was intentionally built underground for security reasons, since Rome in its early years had some problems with the Samnites living in the area.
People, from popular culture, get the wrong idea when thinking of Roman aquaeducts. The large bridge structures one might think of are the exception. Underground tunnels were the rule.
Comment
-
Originally posted by kato View Post...People, from popular culture, get the wrong idea when thinking of Roman aquaeducts. The large bridge structures one might think of are the exception. Underground tunnels were the rule.
But I’ve been made aware of various reasons such a campaign would not have been contemplated, among others;
- that it would not have been an accepted mode of war making,
- that it would not have mattered, since alternative ways of making up for a shortfall of 17,000mm3 water would have been available, local wells, stored water etc.When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow. - Anais Nin
Comment
Comment