05-25-2006, 04:56 PM
Check your PM.
No coming back from defeat isn't unique to Rome, but the manner in which Rome did so and it's stubborn refusal to make terms with the enemy during the years of the Republic when all seemed lost are rather unique. Certainly unique enough to have been mentioned and commented on by historians and writers.
Xiong Nu may have never suffered 'huge' defeats, then again those same 'strengths' that allowed them to melt away insured that they didn't achieve anything even remotely approachable to the civilization of the Han, though that's a different issue.
In the first Punic War and probably the second, it can be strongly argued that Carthage was the more wealthy and certainly the more commercial state of the two. In fact trade was arguably it's reason for existence.
While a strong economy may be important in rising from defeat it's only part of the equation and less important in an heavily agriculturally based economy than a more developed one.
Trust me, all combat is situational. Today that's reflected in the US Army concept of METT-T (Mission, Enemy, Troops available, Terrain and Time), one which any experienced Roman (and Han) commander would recognize intuitively. It's also a strong argument for the gladius since it carries both the capacity for thrusting and slashing. I think others have clarified other portions of the gladius argument.
Quote:Coming back from huge defeats isn't something that's just special to Rome. Any successful country came back from huge defeats. The XiongNu of course never suffered "huge" defeats in the first place(because of their manueverability, if anything seems wrong, just RUN AWAY!), that is until the time of WuDi(as a result that WuDi CHEATED by secretely preparing over a GENERATION for war, as well as the luck to have a line of genius generals while the XiongNu had so-so generals)...
No coming back from defeat isn't unique to Rome, but the manner in which Rome did so and it's stubborn refusal to make terms with the enemy during the years of the Republic when all seemed lost are rather unique. Certainly unique enough to have been mentioned and commented on by historians and writers.
Xiong Nu may have never suffered 'huge' defeats, then again those same 'strengths' that allowed them to melt away insured that they didn't achieve anything even remotely approachable to the civilization of the Han, though that's a different issue.
Quote:My theory of the reason why countries can come back from a major defeat is that this country has a stronger economy than its opposing country. Thus it can resupply its manpower, weapons, food supply, and armor faster than the opposing side. Rome against Carthage is a perfect example of this, for it was Rome who had the better economic edge...
In the first Punic War and probably the second, it can be strongly argued that Carthage was the more wealthy and certainly the more commercial state of the two. In fact trade was arguably it's reason for existence.
While a strong economy may be important in rising from defeat it's only part of the equation and less important in an heavily agriculturally based economy than a more developed one.
Quote:"That depends on the situation. Even with enough room to swing, a swing needs to have force applied to it, as that is its only advantage over thrusting."
Trust me, all combat is situational. Today that's reflected in the US Army concept of METT-T (Mission, Enemy, Troops available, Terrain and Time), one which any experienced Roman (and Han) commander would recognize intuitively. It's also a strong argument for the gladius since it carries both the capacity for thrusting and slashing. I think others have clarified other portions of the gladius argument.
Frank
