History questions not worth their own thread V

[Louis XXIV]

I personally agree with the majority opinion here that north-south divides aren't all that important for empires. I think it's an obstacle to overcome, of course (anything that divides your empire geographically is one more obstacle to face), but not an insurmountable one.

That being said, there is something to be said for the north-south axis when it comes to agriculture. Some crops grow in one climate but can't grow in another. Sorghum, for example, grows in the Sahel Zone, but did not grow south of there. This was a problem for the spread of agriculture and the Bantu migration. By the time the Bantu peoples made it to southern Africa, they no longer had Sorghum or any of the other crops that grew up there. Likewise, the spread of Mesoamerican corn into the northeast United States was slowed by the need to develop a corn that could deal with the cooler temperatures. The north-south divide for agriculture was a bit more significant than an east-west divide.

 

[Masada]

You can say the same about East-West though, rice for example diffused into Southeast Asia fine, but didn't manage to work its way East because of, I dunno, desert and stuff. Actually, that would be broadly true of all Asian crops; and the same for European crops trying to move West.

 

[Plotinus]

Yes, but climate differences moving east to west are contingent on local geography. They may or may not happen. Whereas there are always and necessarily climate changes moving north to south - in addition to any that arise from local geography. So you'd expect more, and greater, climate changes in the north-south direction than in the east-west direction, as a rule.

 

[Masada]

Sure, but if your rule breaks down for at least half of Eurasia how valuable a rule is it? It also fails in Africa because transmission within the continent ran north-south, up and down the coast, not east to west across the Sahara. So while it might be trivially true, and I'm not convinced it is, I'm finding it hard to see how it has any real value outside, perhaps, of Europe. And I'm not even sure if transmission ran east-west either?

 

[sophie]

First: "Large" is a very vague term.

Plus how much of sydhe's counterpoint can be attributed to Diamond's assertion that empires had trouble expanding southwards due strictly to climactic differences and how much of it was due to lack of reliable roads and distance from bureaucratic capitals making centralized administration near impossible.

 

[Masada]

*shrug*

In India we can confidently blame the Deccan Plateau.

 

[Tee Kay]

States expand along the Ganges Valley but not to the south where the path of expansion is complicated by mountain ranges and lack of navigable rivers. Obviously must be a climatic difference thing.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

Plus how much of sydhe's counterpoint can be attributed to Diamond's assertion that empires had trouble expanding southwards due strictly to climactic differences and how much of it was due to lack of reliable roads and distance from bureaucratic capitals making centralized administration near impossible.

Very true, for instance Rome not conquering Germania during the Principate had less to do with anything that might have happened in the woods in 9 A.D. than the fact that the Empire was already heavily involved in what we today would call "nation building" (building roads, imposing new political and social systems, civic planning, the usual drill) in Gaul, which was enormously expensive in both liquid wealth and manpower. There was almost zero gain in taking Germania past prestige.

Popular historians and your classics professor usually fail to mention the 3 successful military campaigns Rome launched shortly after Teutoburg Wald, one of which they even captured the lost Aquilae. Rome could have taken Germania if they really wanted.

 

[Arctic Daishi]

Anyone read any good books regarding the Suez Crisis? I'd like to learn more about the incident, thanks in advance!

 

[Flying Pig]

Very true, for instance Rome not conquering Germania during the Principate had less to do with anything that might have happened in the woods in 9 A.D. than the fact that the Empire was already heavily involved in what we today would call "nation building" (building roads, imposing new political and social systems, civic planning, the usual drill) in Gaul, which was enormously expensive in both liquid wealth and manpower. There was almost zero gain in taking Germania past prestige.

Not to mention that allowing another officer to gain glory in Germania would quite easily have eroded Augustus' authority and become a second Caesar; Augustus himself was, despite his popular image, a remarkably poor soldier. Your final sentence encompasses quite a lot of Roman expansion, notably Britain, Armenia and the Third Punic War, so I'm not convinced that the argument works on its own. However, your overstretch argument is a good one.

Anyone read any good books regarding the Suez Crisis? I'd like to learn more about the incident, thanks in advance!

I've heard there's a rather good article on it floating around on a website for Civilisation players.

 

[Louis XXIV]

You can say the same about East-West though, rice for example diffused into Southeast Asia fine, but didn't manage to work its way East because of, I dunno, desert and stuff. Actually, that would be broadly true of all Asian crops; and the same for European crops trying to move West.

Sure, specific geography can always be a concern - the Mojave desert prevented corn from reaching the Pacific Northwest, for example. But that's local geography - temperature is a much wider path. European crops actually did move west very quickly from an anthropological perspective so any barriers there weren't really barriers. Rice never really made it in the same way as other cereal crops, I agree with you there.

 

[Dachs]

Not to mention that allowing another officer to gain glory in Germania would quite easily have eroded Augustus' authority and become a second Caesar; Augustus himself was, despite his popular image, a remarkably poor soldier.

i guess this is why he never let agrippa do anything

oh wait

 

[Domen]

There was almost zero gain in taking Germania past prestige.

Indeed, on the other hand Gaul was already a wealthy land before the conquest. Which is why it attracted Roman invaders.

Rome could have taken Germania if they really wanted.

They could have established and sustained control over major settlements and trade / communication routes.

But Germania was a heavily forested land and Germanic tribes were less "civilized" than Gallic tribes (weaker central authorities, bigger dispersal of population, less numerous major population centers, etc.) which means that establishing control over entire area would be much more difficult.

IIRC, there was a tribe in Asia Minor*, which was never really controlled by Rome despite all the surrounding areas being under Roman control (the realistic equivalent of the fairy-tale Asterix village). In Germania similar tribes would be much more numerous, even long after Roman conquest.

*I forgot its name.

History shows that more centralized civilizations on higher level of development are easier to control than simpler societies.

 

[Masada]

Sure, specific geography can always be a concern - the Mojave desert prevented corn from reaching the Pacific Northwest, for example. But that's local geography - temperature is a much wider path. European crops actually did move west very quickly from an anthropological perspective so any barriers there weren't really barriers. Rice never really made it in the same way as other cereal crops, I agree with you there.

A much wider path that, uhhhh, doesn't matter all that much apparently? And how did European crops, uhhhh, move West.

 

[Dachs]

IIRC, there was a tribe in Asia Minor*, which was never really controlled by Rome despite all the surrounding areas being under Roman control (the realistic equivalent of the fairy-tale Asterix village). In Germania similar tribes would be much more numerous, even long after Roman conquest.

*I forgot its name.

You're talking about the Isaurians. Also, that's not a very accurate depiction of their situation. Rome did control Isauria.

 

[sophie]

Sure, specific geography can always be a concern - the Mojave desert prevented corn from reaching the Pacific Northwest, for example. But that's local geography - temperature is a much wider path. European crops actually did move west very quickly from an anthropological perspective so any barriers there weren't really barriers. Rice never really made it in the same way as other cereal crops, I agree with you there.

Well then maybe we should be paying closer attention to local geography rather than trying to create sweeping generalizations which necessarily come with a mountain of caveats.

Oh

 

[Flying Pig]

i guess this is why he never let agrippa do anything

oh wait

Well, the reverse really applied with Agrippa, since Augustus could both count on his loyalty - he was his oldest and closest personal friend as well as closest ally - and intended him, along with Marcellus, to take over the reins of Roman government in the event of his own death. As such, Agrippa needed to be somebody that the soldiers could respect. His death actually threw quite the spanner in the works, only compounded when Tiberius announced his 'retirement' to Rhodes.

Certainly, the Principate carried with it the almost-total concentration of military glory - as distinct from military command - in the hands of the emperor, and only the Emperor or close relatives and allies such as Tiberius celebrated triumphs after about 19 BC. In later years there developed the doctrine that any major military operation had to be led by the emperor, which led to some frankly ridiculous situations. I think it was Severus Alexander who was campaigning in the east against the Sassanids and, having concluded, was forced almost immediately to rush to defend Italy against the Germans. At another time, Roman officers stationed on the Danube informed Gothic tribesmen asking to cross that only the emperor's personal command could allow them to open the crossings. He allowed them through, but they soon rose in revolt against Roman brutality - at which Valens himself led the military response, culminating in the Battle of Adrianople, the most catastrophic defeat in Roman history. Indeed, the doctrine was one of the reasons why the Tetrarchy was adopted: there was simply too much fighting going on for one man to lead it all.

 

[Louis XXIV]

A much wider path that, uhhhh, doesn't matter all that much apparently? And how did European crops, uhhhh, move West.

I must have misread that. There are no European crops per se, they're Middle Eastern crops. I thought you meant the crops associated with Europe (wheat and barley) moved west into Europe. Sorry for the misunderstanding there.

Well then maybe we should be paying closer attention to local geography rather than trying to create sweeping generalizations which necessarily come with a mountain of caveats.

My point is that there are fewer caveats necessary when it comes to climate belts. Those barriers are fairly uniform as opposed to localized.

 

[Masada]

That seems a huge call? I also don't see how a lot of geographic barriers can be called "localized?" The Himalayas for example.

 

[ParkCungHee]

The ocean also springs to mind.