On Nov 4, 3:44 am, SolomonW <Solom...@nospamMail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:16:50 -0800 (PST), Tiglath wrote: > > Cannae is 400 km from Rome, so that even marching at twenty km a day, > > it would have taken Hannibal's army three weeks to get there, ample > > time for the Romans to organize the defense of the city.
> The Romans would not have that much warning. I am not sure if the Romans > would have a pony express if so they would get the message in two to three > days.
> If they depend on a runner, doing a net search
Surely there were horses in Italy in the third century B.C.
At a mere canter would have taken sixteen hours to reach Rome, and only ten at a gallop of relays, which surely the event warranted.
> The other problem is I doubt the Tomans would have continuous guards > watching Hannibal's army with runners to communicate with Rome. So I doubt > Rome would know where Hannibal's army was.
Why such doubts? You have a Punic Band from Hell bearing down on your capital and you would not have a decent army of scouts to watch them?
> It is possible Rome would not be prepared and could be entered in a > surprise operation.
Oh boy!
Yep. I can just imagine the whole Roman Senate on crosses looking down at Hannibal's warriors madly raping the Vestal Virgins in the Forum Romanum, as senators yell to each other, "who the fuck left the kitchen door unlocked."
And "The Roman Times" front page:
"OOPS! HANNIBAL'S FORTY THOUSAND AFRICANS SNEAK UP ON ROME AS THE ETERNAL CITY SNOOZES"
> > at least as large as those he had fought at Cannae, and he wold have > > been in increasing danger of being hemmed in, just the kind of warfare > > he was always anxious to avoid.
> This I disagree with as Hannibal was always trying to bring the Roman army > in the field against him.
Lazenby doesn't say he avoided battle, he says he avoided being hemmed in, as he would have been between Rome's wall and a large relief force on his back.
> His main problem was the Romans kept refusing > battle.
His main problem is that he wasn't welcome and had ten times fewer men than he needed for the job.
> >I am partly though a book "War and Peace and War by Peter Turchin". > > In this book he makes the following claim that early Rome and the > > surrounding Italians greatest enemy was the Gauls. That they were > > repulsed > > by the Gauls and that a war between them was almost genocidal.
> > I would have said it was the Punic's.
> The Gauls actually sacked the city of Rome around 390 BC and the romans > never forgot it, and worried about what might come out of the large lands > to > the north. Caesar *claimed* that his campaigns in Gaul were of a > pre-emptive > nature in the long term defense of Rome. However, about 350 years had > passed > between the sack of rome, and the destruction of the Gallic tribes by > Caesar.
> As far as genocide goes, I've read estimates that Caesar's campaigns led > to > the death of as many as 2 million gauls - probably mostly due to wrecking > their food supplies. I think the massive loss of life was more a side > effect > of conquering them versus deliberate extermination.
> As far as being repulsed by tthe Gauls - they were probably more repulsed > by > their Druid religion with its human sacrifices. Romans respected most > religions, but not the Druids. I think Tacitus mentions some Roman troops > vomiting at the sight of children being sacrificed by Boudica's army > before > their defeat at the Battle of Watling street.
== Rome used to bury alive a pair of Gauls, one male, one female to appease the Gods in time of crisis. It was infrequent, but despite their repulsion for human sacrifice, when push came to shove they did it too. ==
Interesting.
Wiki: Roman human sacrifice: The Romans themselves only definitively banned human sacrifice, by senatorial decree, in 97 BC.[231] But it was by then very rare, only practiced in times of extreme national emergency. e.g. after their disastrous defeat at the Battle of Cannae (216 BC), the Romans had, after consulting the Sibylline Books, buried alive in the Forum Boarium (Cattle Market), a pair of Gauls and a pair of Greeks.[232]
The thing is, it seem to have worked....
At a moderate stretch, the gladiator games invovlved what were essentially human sacrifices. I think some historians say they evolved out of Etruscan funerary traditions / rites.
> > >I am partly though a book "War and Peace and War by Peter Turchin". > > > In this book he makes the following claim that early Rome and the > > > surrounding Italians greatest enemy was the Gauls. That they were > > > repulsed > > > by the Gauls and that a war between them was almost genocidal.
> > > I would have said it was the Punic's.
> > The Gauls actually sacked the city of Rome around 390 BC and the romans > > never forgot it, and worried about what might come out of the large lands > > to > > the north. Caesar *claimed* that his campaigns in Gaul were of a > > pre-emptive > > nature in the long term defense of Rome. However, about 350 years had > > passed > > between the sack of rome, and the destruction of the Gallic tribes by > > Caesar.
> > As far as genocide goes, I've read estimates that Caesar's campaigns led > > to > > the death of as many as 2 million gauls - probably mostly due to wrecking > > their food supplies. I think the massive loss of life was more a side > > effect > > of conquering them versus deliberate extermination.
> > As far as being repulsed by tthe Gauls - they were probably more repulsed > > by > > their Druid religion with its human sacrifices. Romans respected most > > religions, but not the Druids. I think Tacitus mentions some Roman troops > > vomiting at the sight of children being sacrificed by Boudica's army > > before > > their defeat at the Battle of Watling street.
> == > Rome used to bury alive a pair of Gauls, one male, one female to > appease the Gods in time of crisis. It was infrequent, but despite > their repulsion for human sacrifice, when push came to shove they did > it too. > ==
> Interesting.
> Wiki: Roman human sacrifice: The Romans themselves only definitively banned > human sacrifice, by senatorial decree, in 97 BC.[231] But it was by then > very rare, only practiced in times of extreme national emergency. e.g. after > their disastrous defeat at the Battle of Cannae (216 BC), the Romans had, > after consulting the Sibylline Books, buried alive in the Forum Boarium > (Cattle Market), a pair of Gauls and a pair of Greeks.[232]
> The thing is, it seem to have worked....
> At a moderate stretch, the gladiator games invovlved what were essentially > human sacrifices. I think some historians say they evolved out of Etruscan > funerary traditions / rites.
AFAIK,The earliest mention resembling gladiatorial event is by Herodotus where when Cimmerians were expelled by Skythians, their noblemen fought each other to death so they could be buried in the land of their ancestors.
> > >I am partly though a book "War and Peace and War by Peter Turchin". > > > In this book he makes the following claim that early Rome and the > > > surrounding Italians greatest enemy was the Gauls. That they were > > > repulsed > > > by the Gauls and that a war between them was almost genocidal.
> > > I would have said it was the Punic's.
> > The Gauls actually sacked the city of Rome around 390 BC and the romans > > never forgot it, and worried about what might come out of the large lands > > to > > the north. Caesar *claimed* that his campaigns in Gaul were of a > > pre-emptive > > nature in the long term defense of Rome. However, about 350 years had > > passed > > between the sack of rome, and the destruction of the Gallic tribes by > > Caesar.
> > As far as genocide goes, I've read estimates that Caesar's campaigns led > > to > > the death of as many as 2 million gauls - probably mostly due to wrecking > > their food supplies. I think the massive loss of life was more a side > > effect > > of conquering them versus deliberate extermination.
> > As far as being repulsed by tthe Gauls - they were probably more repulsed > > by > > their Druid religion with its human sacrifices. Romans respected most > > religions, but not the Druids. I think Tacitus mentions some Roman troops > > vomiting at the sight of children being sacrificed by Boudica's army > > before > > their defeat at the Battle of Watling street.
> == > Rome used to bury alive a pair of Gauls, one male, one female to > appease the Gods in time of crisis. It was infrequent, but despite > their repulsion for human sacrifice, when push came to shove they did > it too. > ==
> Interesting.
> Wiki: Roman human sacrifice: The Romans themselves only definitively banned > human sacrifice, by senatorial decree, in 97 BC.[231] But it was by then > very rare, only practiced in times of extreme national emergency. e.g. after > their disastrous defeat at the Battle of Cannae (216 BC), the Romans had, > after consulting the Sibylline Books, buried alive in the Forum Boarium > (Cattle Market), a pair of Gauls and a pair of Greeks.[232]
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 07:53:50 -0800 (PST), Tiglath wrote: > On Nov 4, 3:44 am, SolomonW <Solom...@nospamMail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:16:50 -0800 (PST), Tiglath wrote: >>> Cannae is 400 km from Rome, so that even marching at twenty km a day, >>> it would have taken Hannibal's army three weeks to get there, ample >>> time for the Romans to organize the defense of the city.
>> The Romans would not have that much warning. I am not sure if the Romans >> would have a pony express if so they would get the message in two to three >> days.
>> If they depend on a runner, doing a net search
> Surely there were horses in Italy in the third century B.C.
Indeed
> At a mere canter would have taken sixteen hours to reach Rome, and > only ten at a gallop of relays, which surely the event warranted.
Horses are not that good at long distances. See this website for what a horse can do.
Early Racing # Prussia and Austro-Hungarian soldiers raced 350 miles from Berlin to Vienna in 1892. The winner made the trip in 72 hours but, unfortunately, his horse died after the race.
Pony Express In the 1860s, the United States Pony Express transported and delivered mail via horseback. The mail service averaged speeds of 9 miles per hour.
Unless the Romans used birds, they would need a few days to find out.
>> The other problem is I doubt the Tomans would have continuous guards >> watching Hannibal's army with runners to communicate with Rome. So I doubt >> Rome would know where Hannibal's army was.
> Why such doubts? You have a Punic Band from Hell bearing down on your > capital and you would not have a decent army of scouts to watch them?
Depends my army is shattered and needs time to regroup. I would probably be able to send a messenger but I doubt I would have scouts and messengers to monitor Hannibal's army.
>> It is possible Rome would not be prepared and could be entered in a >> surprise operation.
> Oh boy!
> Yep. I can just imagine the whole Roman Senate on crosses looking down > at Hannibal's warriors madly raping the Vestal Virgins in the Forum > Romanum, as senators yell to each other, "who the fuck left the > kitchen door unlocked."
This did happen. Constantinople was taken by the Greeks because one gate was left open.
> And "The Roman Times" front page:
> "OOPS! HANNIBAL'S FORTY THOUSAND AFRICANS SNEAK UP ON ROME AS THE > ETERNAL CITY SNOOZES"
>>> at least as large as those he had fought at Cannae, and he wold have >>> been in increasing danger of being hemmed in, just the kind of warfare >>> he was always anxious to avoid.
>> This I disagree with as Hannibal was always trying to bring the Roman army >> in the field against him.
> Lazenby doesn't say he avoided battle, he says he avoided being hemmed > in, as he would have been between Rome's wall and a large relief force > on his back.
I doubt that the Romans would dare to allow such a relief force after Cannae, to attempt such a task.
(a) >> His main problem was the Romans kept refusing >> battle.
> His main problem is that he wasn't welcome and had ten times fewer men > than he needed for the job.
This is true too but my point at (a) is valid too.
> > > >I am partly though a book "War and Peace and War by Peter Turchin". > > > > In this book he makes the following claim that early Rome and the > > > > surrounding Italians greatest enemy was the Gauls. That they were > > > > repulsed > > > > by the Gauls and that a war between them was almost genocidal.
> > > > I would have said it was the Punic's.
> > > The Gauls actually sacked the city of Rome around 390 BC and the romans > > > never forgot it, and worried about what might come out of the large lands > > > to > > > the north. Caesar *claimed* that his campaigns in Gaul were of a > > > pre-emptive > > > nature in the long term defense of Rome. However, about 350 years had > > > passed > > > between the sack of rome, and the destruction of the Gallic tribes by > > > Caesar.
> > > As far as genocide goes, I've read estimates that Caesar's campaigns led > > > to > > > the death of as many as 2 million gauls - probably mostly due to wrecking > > > their food supplies. I think the massive loss of life was more a side > > > effect > > > of conquering them versus deliberate extermination.
> > > As far as being repulsed by tthe Gauls - they were probably more repulsed > > > by > > > their Druid religion with its human sacrifices. Romans respected most > > > religions, but not the Druids. I think Tacitus mentions some Roman troops > > > vomiting at the sight of children being sacrificed by Boudica's army > > > before > > > their defeat at the Battle of Watling street.
> > == > > Rome used to bury alive a pair of Gauls, one male, one female to > > appease the Gods in time of crisis. It was infrequent, but despite > > their repulsion for human sacrifice, when push came to shove they did > > it too. > > ==
> > Interesting.
> > Wiki: Roman human sacrifice: The Romans themselves only definitively banned > > human sacrifice, by senatorial decree, in 97 BC.[231] But it was by then > > very rare, only practiced in times of extreme national emergency. e.g. after > > their disastrous defeat at the Battle of Cannae (216 BC), the Romans had, > > after consulting the Sibylline Books, buried alive in the Forum Boarium > > (Cattle Market), a pair of Gauls and a pair of Greeks.[232]
> > The thing is, it seem to have worked....
> Damn recession, let's go get Sarkozy...
> And Aggie?- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
LOL, Why not, you never know, it may work. I would offer god a package deal and include Matt, JTEM and couple of others from this group also. And right before burial forcefully circumcise and convert morons to Judaism.
> > > > >I am partly though a book "War and Peace and War by Peter Turchin". > > > > > In this book he makes the following claim that early Rome and the > > > > > surrounding Italians greatest enemy was the Gauls. That they were > > > > > repulsed > > > > > by the Gauls and that a war between them was almost genocidal.
> > > > > I would have said it was the Punic's.
> > > > The Gauls actually sacked the city of Rome around 390 BC and the romans > > > > never forgot it, and worried about what might come out of the large lands > > > > to > > > > the north. Caesar *claimed* that his campaigns in Gaul were of a > > > > pre-emptive > > > > nature in the long term defense of Rome. However, about 350 years had > > > > passed > > > > between the sack of rome, and the destruction of the Gallic tribes by > > > > Caesar.
> > > > As far as genocide goes, I've read estimates that Caesar's campaigns led > > > > to > > > > the death of as many as 2 million gauls - probably mostly due to wrecking > > > > their food supplies. I think the massive loss of life was more a side > > > > effect > > > > of conquering them versus deliberate extermination.
> > > > As far as being repulsed by tthe Gauls - they were probably more repulsed > > > > by > > > > their Druid religion with its human sacrifices. Romans respected most > > > > religions, but not the Druids. I think Tacitus mentions some Roman troops > > > > vomiting at the sight of children being sacrificed by Boudica's army > > > > before > > > > their defeat at the Battle of Watling street.
> > > == > > > Rome used to bury alive a pair of Gauls, one male, one female to > > > appease the Gods in time of crisis. It was infrequent, but despite > > > their repulsion for human sacrifice, when push came to shove they did > > > it too. > > > ==
> > > Interesting.
> > > Wiki: Roman human sacrifice: The Romans themselves only definitively banned > > > human sacrifice, by senatorial decree, in 97 BC.[231] But it was by then > > > very rare, only practiced in times of extreme national emergency. e.g. after > > > their disastrous defeat at the Battle of Cannae (216 BC), the Romans had, > > > after consulting the Sibylline Books, buried alive in the Forum Boarium > > > (Cattle Market), a pair of Gauls and a pair of Greeks.[232]
> > > The thing is, it seem to have worked....
> > Damn recession, let's go get Sarkozy...
> > And Aggie?- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> LOL, Why not, you never know, it may work. I would offer god a package > deal and include Matt, JTEM
That's a sure way to piss off any god, even Baal. Isis and Osiris would give JTEM right back. "No, Big Thanks. You keep stinko."
> On Nov 1, 8:58 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 1, 5:31 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net> > > wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > Neither the Gauls nor the Carthaginians (1) annihilated the Romans, > > > > > (2) permanently impaired the Romans' ability to defend themselves and > > > > > wage war, or (3) effected a permanent Roman territorial diminishment.
> > > > The Carthaginians couldn't and the Gauls wouldn't.
> > > Neither assertion is a fact.
> > Silly comeback, it is a historical FACT that the Carthaginians could > > not do any of those things after three all-out attempts.
> No, the fact is that they did not -- it is impossible to ever know > that they could not. (See the quoted sources in my reply above.)
Semantic games?
In this context:
"could" = were able to.
"could" != could have if.
How is the ability to do something measured other than by putting it to the test? Three Punic Wars = three tests.
You test and then you know. They did now we know.
The only other consideration your "could" may refer to, is if circumstances had been different, but that would be a dreaded "what- if,," would it not?
> > As to the Gauls, as best we know they could have, but Romans were > > lucky that they were sacked by Gallic marauders not migrants.
> No, the fact is that they did not;
Never disputed.
> we have no solid evidence that they > could have.
"Could have" admits an "if."
As I said, the point was not up to the Romans whether the Gauls could have or not. Once occupied and the Romans at their weakest circumstances were favorable to follow up their victory forming permanent settlements. They had the numbers of it, but not the desire. Absence of desire on the part of the Gauls, is not a Roman merit, it's Roman luck.
See, e.g., Tim J. Cornell,_The Beginnings of Rome_(New
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 07:53:50 -0800 (PST), Tiglath wrote: > > On Nov 4, 3:44 am, SolomonW <Solom...@nospamMail.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:16:50 -0800 (PST), Tiglath wrote: > >>> Cannae is 400 km from Rome, so that even marching at twenty km a day, > >>> it would have taken Hannibal's army three weeks to get there, ample > >>> time for the Romans to organize the defense of the city.
> >> The Romans would not have that much warning. I am not sure if the Romans > >> would have a pony express if so they would get the message in two to three > >> days.
> >> If they depend on a runner, doing a net search
> > Surely there were horses in Italy in the third century B.C.
> Indeed
> > At a mere canter would have taken sixteen hours to reach Rome, and > > only ten at a gallop of relays, which surely the event warranted.
> Horses are not that good at long distances. See this website for what a > horse can do.
That's why you have horse relays, as I said above.
> Pony Express > In the 1860s, the United States Pony Express transported and delivered mail > via horseback. The mail service averaged speeds of 9 miles per hour.
That's because it was imperative not to overwork the horsed for economic reasons that didn't exist during Rome's national urgent emergency.
> Unless the Romans used birds, they would need a few days to find out.
Ten hours, using three or four horse relays. Same messenger four horses.
> >> The other problem is I doubt the Tomans would have continuous guards > >> watching Hannibal's army with runners to communicate with Rome. So I doubt > >> Rome would know where Hannibal's army was.
> > Why such doubts? You have a Punic Band from Hell bearing down on your > > capital and you would not have a decent army of scouts to watch them?
> Depends my army is shattered and needs time to regroup. I would probably be > able to send a messenger but I doubt I would have scouts and messengers to > monitor Hannibal's army.
What is to doubt? The very scouts of the consular armies were more than capable to run to Rome along a route prepared for fast communications. It was a BIG DEAL putting 80,000 men at arms on the field, and not a big deal to communicate with Rome through territory friendly territory.
> >> It is possible Rome would not be prepared and could be entered in a > >> surprise operation.
> > Oh boy!
> > Yep. I can just imagine the whole Roman Senate on crosses looking down > > at Hannibal's warriors madly raping the Vestal Virgins in the Forum > > Romanum, as senators yell to each other, "who the fuck left the > > kitchen door unlocked."
> This did happen. Constantinople was taken by the Greeks because one gate > was left open.
That seem to have been a recurrent problem in that city. There is no telling that such a lapse can't occur especially if treachery is involved, but what you suggest that Rome could be entered by a surprise operation, is pushing it a bit. During a long siege a gate may be left open, but that is not the same as an army of 40,000 surprising a city which expects its arrival.
> I doubt that the Romans would dare to allow such a relief force after > Cannae, to attempt such a task.
Why not, what was the alternative? Hannibal would be hemmed between two fronts, the sorties from the city and the relief force from all other sides. A besieging army is not in the same position as an army in he field in battle order on its chosen ground.
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 11:48:38 -0800 (PST), Tiglath wrote: > On Nov 5, 4:08 am, SolomonW <Solom...@nospamMail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 07:53:50 -0800 (PST), Tiglath wrote: >>> On Nov 4, 3:44 am, SolomonW <Solom...@nospamMail.com> wrote: >>>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:16:50 -0800 (PST), Tiglath wrote: >>>>> Cannae is 400 km from Rome, so that even marching at twenty km a day, >>>>> it would have taken Hannibal's army three weeks to get there, ample >>>>> time for the Romans to organize the defense of the city.
>>>> The Romans would not have that much warning. I am not sure if the Romans >>>> would have a pony express if so they would get the message in two to three >>>> days.
>>>> If they depend on a runner, doing a net search
>>> Surely there were horses in Italy in the third century B.C.
>> Indeed
>>> At a mere canter would have taken sixteen hours to reach Rome, and >>> only ten at a gallop of relays, which surely the event warranted.
>> Horses are not that good at long distances. See this website for what a >> horse can do.
> That's why you have horse relays, as I said above.
I am not sure if Rome was set up with such a system but even if it was see (a) below
>> Pony Express >> In the 1860s, the United States Pony Express transported and delivered mail >> via horseback. The mail service averaged speeds of 9 miles per hour.
> That's because it was imperative not to overwork the horsed for > economic reasons that didn't exist during Rome's national urgent > emergency.
(a) Disagree because this is about the max a horse can go over distance.
>>>> The other problem is I doubt the Tomans would have continuous guards >>>> watching Hannibal's army with runners to communicate with Rome. So I doubt >>>> Rome would know where Hannibal's army was.
>>> Why such doubts? You have a Punic Band from Hell bearing down on your >>> capital and you would not have a decent army of scouts to watch them?
>> Depends my army is shattered and needs time to regroup. I would probably be >> able to send a messenger but I doubt I would have scouts and messengers to >> monitor Hannibal's army.
> What is to doubt? The very scouts of the consular armies were more > than capable to run to Rome along a route prepared for fast > communications. It was a BIG DEAL putting 80,000 men at arms on the > field, and not a big deal to communicate with Rome through territory > friendly territory.
The organization required after such a defeat.
Hannibal did a few times manage to lose these Roman scouts such as in Campania.
>>>> It is possible Rome would not be prepared and could be entered in a >>>> surprise operation.
>>> Oh boy!
>>> Yep. I can just imagine the whole Roman Senate on crosses looking down >>> at Hannibal's warriors madly raping the Vestal Virgins in the Forum >>> Romanum, as senators yell to each other, "who the fuck left the >>> kitchen door unlocked."
>> This did happen. Constantinople was taken by the Greeks because one gate >> was left open.
> That seem to have been a recurrent problem in that city. There is no > telling that such a lapse can't occur especially if treachery is > involved, but what you suggest that Rome could be entered by a > surprise operation, is pushing it a bit. During a long siege a gate > may be left open, but that is not the same as an army of 40,000 > surprising a city which expects its arrival.
An army comes suddenly out of the blue. The defenders madly try to organize a defence, a door is left open. It happened. Not very often I confess.
>> I doubt that the Romans would dare to allow such a relief force after >> Cannae, to attempt such a task.
> Why not, what was the alternative? Hannibal would be hemmed between > two fronts, the sorties from the city and the relief force from all > other sides. A besieging army is not in the same position as an army > in he field in battle order on its chosen ground.
Fear of Hannibal. I would suggest the Romans would wait him out which is what they did in the OTL a bit later on.
On Nov 6, 4:48 am, SolomonW <Solom...@nospamMail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 11:48:38 -0800 (PST), Tiglath wrote:
> >> Horses are not that good at long distances. See this website for what a > >> horse can do.
> > That's why you have horse relays, as I said above.
> I am not sure if Rome was set up with such a system but even if it was see > (a) below
You can be. The literature mentions them. For example, in the First Punic Wars, Roman scouts reported the arrival of a Punic fleet at tha Aegates Islands off the coast of Sicily. During the Second Punic War, who do you think spotted the Punic relief forces arriving in Italy the few times Carthage sent them?
The Romans were generally cautious. On the march the set up a fortified camp with ditch and rampart every night.
> >> Pony Express > >> In the 1860s, the United States Pony Express transported and delivered mail > >> via horseback. The mail service averaged speeds of 9 miles per hour.
> > That's because it was imperative not to overwork the horsed for > > economic reasons that didn't exist during Rome's national urgent > > emergency.
> (a) Disagree because this is about the max a horse can go over distance.
Why do you keep ignoring the fact that a rider can change horses as many times as necessary during a long distance run, if so disposed? Surely the utter importance of the event warranted that Rome left fresh horse at several points between Cannae and Rome for the purpose of hasten communications. That being the case a rider could maintain a gallop for the entire 250 miles and cover the distance in less than half a day.
More of the same. That race involves only ONE horse.
> The Mongols had a pony express system too and a riders did about 60 miles a > day.
A mail system does not necessarily carry the sense of urgency of a national emergency, why can't you see this salient difference?
> >> Unless the Romans used birds, they would need a few days to find out.
> > Ten hours, using three or four horse relays. Same messenger four > > horses.
> Except they cannot go at night.
Irrelevant. They could set out at first light the day after the battle and be at Rome's gates before evening. Or ride after the battle until dark (August 2) and go half the way and do the rest at first light and be at Rome before noon.
> > What is to doubt? The very scouts of the consular armies were more > > than capable to run to Rome along a route prepared for fast > > communications. It was a BIG DEAL putting 80,000 men at arms on the > > field, and not a big deal to communicate with Rome through territory > > friendly territory.
> The organization required after such a defeat.
The defeat involved the main army not the scouts who obviously were not in the melee but on the sidelines ready to report the battle's outcome. Despite the defeat the Roman survivors at Cannae filled two legions.
> Hannibal did a few times manage to lose these Roman scouts such as in > Campania.
True. They were not infallible, or covered all grounds, but there were only so many ways a large army could approach Rome, so scouts did not have to follow an elusive enemy, just sit and wait. As to the scouts at Cannae, it's very hard to lose the dust cloud of an army of 40,000 on the move, or its night fires.
> An army comes suddenly out of the blue.
Actually it does not in the case of Hannibal after Cannae. The Romans were extremely familiar with Rome's surrounding country and Hannibal's march on Rome would not have been at all difficult to detect from start to finish.
How can an army you know it's 250 miles near and maybe approaching within three weeks, surprise you?
> > Why not, what was the alternative? Hannibal would be hemmed between > > two fronts, the sorties from the city and the relief force from all > > other sides. A besieging army is not in the same position as an army > > in he field in battle order on its chosen ground.
> Fear of Hannibal.
There is a vast difference between Fabius' tactics where he would give Hannibal the round around and nothing was lost by the avoidance. And Hannibal attacking Rome, when avoiding to engage Hannibal's could lose the city.
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 10:00:05 -0800 (PST), Tiglath wrote: > On Nov 6, 4:48 am, SolomonW <Solom...@nospamMail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 11:48:38 -0800 (PST), Tiglath wrote:
>>>> Horses are not that good at long distances. See this website for what a >>>> horse can do.
>>> That's why you have horse relays, as I said above.
>> I am not sure if Rome was set up with such a system but even if it was see >> (a) below
> You can be. The literature mentions them. For example, in the First > Punic Wars, Roman scouts reported the arrival of a Punic fleet at tha > Aegates Islands off the coast of Sicily. During the Second Punic > War, who do you think spotted the Punic relief forces arriving in > Italy the few times Carthage sent them?
But how long did they take to bring the message? I doubt Republican Rome had such a pony express system although they may have had an informal type arrangement.
Herodotus talks about the Persians having such a pony express system. Using it a messenger could go from Susa to Sardis (1,677 miles) in ten days. So that is about 167 miles a day.
If the Romans then had something similar they are looking at 2 days.
Later I know Augustus developed such a pony express based on the Persian model in Rome. Using it when Nero died, Galba got the news in Spain a distance of 332 miles in 36 hours.
I think we can assume that two days would be the fastest.
> The Romans were generally cautious. On the march the set up a > fortified camp with ditch and rampart every night.
>>>> Pony Express >>>> In the 1860s, the United States Pony Express transported and delivered mail >>>> via horseback. The mail service averaged speeds of 9 miles per hour.
>>> That's because it was imperative not to overwork the horsed for >>> economic reasons that didn't exist during Rome's national urgent >>> emergency.
>> (a) Disagree because this is about the max a horse can go over distance.
> Why do you keep ignoring the fact that a rider can change horses as > many times as necessary during a long distance run, if so disposed? > Surely the utter importance of the event warranted that Rome left > fresh horse at several points between Cannae and Rome for the purpose > of hasten communications. That being the case a rider could maintain > a gallop for the entire 250 miles and cover the distance in less than > half a day.
(b)
It would have to be 60 times changing their horse to maintain a canter much less a gallop.
a horse in good shape can go about a mile or two before having to stop. It can go much further at a canter about a 3 or 4 miles. This all depends on how fast the pace is, the weight of the rider, the smoothness of the terrain, etc.
>>>> Unless the Romans used birds, they would need a few days to find out.
>>> Ten hours, using three or four horse relays. Same messenger four >>> horses.
>> Except they cannot go at night.
> Irrelevant. They could set out at first light the day after the > battle and be at Rome's gates before evening. Or ride after the > battle until dark (August 2) and go half the way and do the rest at > first light and be at Rome before noon.
That is already then day three, in which case we agree.
>>> What is to doubt? The very scouts of the consular armies were more >>> than capable to run to Rome along a route prepared for fast >>> communications. It was a BIG DEAL putting 80,000 men at arms on the >>> field, and not a big deal to communicate with Rome through territory >>> friendly territory.
>> The organization required after such a defeat.
> The defeat involved the main army not the scouts who obviously were > not in the melee but on the sidelines ready to report the battle's > outcome. Despite the defeat the Roman survivors at Cannae filled two > legions.
Two legions are pulling themselves together and in no state to start such an operation.
>> Hannibal did a few times manage to lose these Roman scouts such as in >> Campania.
> True. They were not infallible, or covered all grounds, but there > were only so many ways a large army could approach Rome, so scouts did > not have to follow an elusive enemy, just sit and wait. As to the > scouts at Cannae, it's very hard to lose the dust cloud of an army of > 40,000 on the move, or its night fires.
Well at Campania, the Romans lost track of where Hannibal's armies were.
>> An army comes suddenly out of the blue.
> Actually it does not in the case of Hannibal after Cannae. The > Romans were extremely familiar with Rome's surrounding country and > Hannibal's march on Rome would not have been at all difficult to > detect from start to finish.
> How can an army you know it's 250 miles near and maybe approaching > within three weeks, surprise you?
It happens. Also I expect if Hannibal's armies are marching false signals are being sent by panicking people everywhere in the area. He going here and he is going here.
>>> Why not, what was the alternative? Hannibal would be hemmed between >>> two fronts, the sorties from the city and the relief force from all >>> other sides. A besieging army is not in the same position as an army >>> in he field in battle order on its chosen ground.
>> Fear of Hannibal.
> There is a vast difference between Fabius' tactics where he would give > Hannibal the round around and nothing was lost by the avoidance. And > Hannibal attacking Rome, when avoiding to engage Hannibal's could lose > the city.
> Don't you think the Romans knew that difference?
Well in the OTL, when Hannibal marched on Rome, they just waited.
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009, igor wrote: > On Nov 5, 2:55 pm, Italo <ola...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> igor <inbellt...@gmail.com> >>> right before burial forcefully circumcise and convert morons to Judaism. >> says the zionist scumbag. >> -- >> Boycott American products > How do you know I am a Zionist, I have not interest in politics, this is a > history group? Moron.
> Folks, buy American products, they are great!!!!!!!!
Both of them. Derivatives are best.
-- Government is a necessary evil. Religion is an unnecessary evil. -- The Iron Webmaster, 4187 http://www.giwersworld.org/holo2/ a11 Sun Nov 8 07:23:52 EST 2009
|
