Ask Me Help Desk - Rome and modern government.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chey5782

You should hear my husband's theory about if the South had won the Civil War... I don't think I could explain it as well as he does. A lot of it goes into later theory about the World Wars, Industry in the nation, and the eventual abolition of slavery because of more cost efficient means of mechanized production. Oh he also mentions States who joined later like Texas and California because of the end of the war. I have a feeling you'd dig his ideas, and refute a few. I'll have him write it and send it to you in a note.

I would enjoy the opportunity to hear his ideas.

Quote:

What about the means of transportation via chariot? Wouldn't that make the stirrup obsolete?

Not at all. Chariots during Roman times were more for sport than for combat (racing, mostly). A chariot is actually a hard machine to fight from. And it requires two people to use it... one to drive, the other to fight. Also, there are certain places that horses can go that chariots cannot. Terrain is a huge factor when talking about chariots. There are very few battlefields in history that didn't include very broken terrain that would make chariots useless. And even if the battle was on flat ground, as soon as the battle began, bodies would litter the area, making it impossible for chariots to maneuver. No, in terms of a cavalry element, MOUNTED cavalry was the way to go, and the invention of the stirrup made mounted cavalry all the more powerful.

Compare the mounted cavalryman, charging with a pike. Before the invention of the stirrup, he would have to hold his pike overhand as if here were going to THROW the pike, and then use his shoulder to drive the pike into his enemy. In the process, he had to avoid falling off his horse. He really couldn't get enough power into that blow, but if he used the underhand grip that you might have seen in movies of knights jousting, he'd be knocked off his horse for sure. And a dismounted cavalryman is a dead cavalryman.

However, with the envention of the stirrup, the rider bacame much more sturdy in the saddle. He was harder to knock off his saddle. And because he could use his feet to balance himself, he could get his entire body behind a blow without being knocked off his horse. Which meant that he was able to use the more powerful underhand grip that you see from jousters. This more powerful blow, additional steadiness in the saddle, and better balance (and resultant greater speed) made a stirruped cavalryman 5 times more powerful than his unstirruped counterpart.

There is a great scene in an alternate-history science fiction novel called "An Oblique Approach". The book was written by David Drake and Eric Flint, and in it the great Roman General Belisarius is given the secret of the stirrup. He uses it in a friendly jousting competition against a friend... a master jouster whom he has never beat. The result is... comical, to say the least. Go to this link for a free (and completely legal) copy of the book. Check out Chapter 11.

An Oblique Approach by David Drake & Eric Flint - Baen Books

Quote:

His theory makes sense to a degree, the efficiency of tools and transportation as well as communication is a part of the inherent drive of man. To seek improvement in life and comfort ability.

The fear with regard to the USA today is that if too much of the economy is nationalized in the name of saving it, there will no longer be an incentive for creativity, ingenuity and hard work. We will then fall behind as other nations continue to advance technologically while we remain where we are right now. That would be a Very Bad Thing from a societal point of view.

I think the issue isn't this in our nation so much as we spend too much time bickering over HOW to maintain both at a level that is acceptable for the people in the nation. Kind of like the military getting a raise when Bush went into office, each party has different agendas. Unfortunately we spend so much time trying to figure out a way to do things like, give our nations people better health care. We ignore answers like, creating limits for those corporations. But that's for a different thread.

Unfortunately, Chey, when I see a President who has nationalized 10 of the 12 largest banks, 2 of the top 3 auto makers, the largest insurance company, and is attempting to nationalize health care, not to mention the fact that his cap & trade will essentially take control of industry in general by controlling HOW they make what they make, I see this as a very definite possibility. This is a HUGE problem. Nationalization, by its very nature takes creativity, talent, ingenuity, and hard work out of the equation and puts the government and its agenda ahead of these factors. It's exactly what happened in Rome, and it COULD happen again. And once that sort of nationalization has begun, it is very hard to reverse course. And it clearly HAS begun.

Elliot