/his/ - History

>>32129

>I would have expected them to

Why? It's not like they were big on advancing technology or anything. The Romans mostly just adopted and organized what worked.

Potassim nitrate does not occur naturally in large quantities like it does in China.

>Chinks used it only for gunpowder

Uh, no. They used it for siege engines too. Fireworks are just the most famous bit cus its flashy

>why did the Romans use aqueducts instead of large pumps?

Pumps require electricity to work son

>why did the Romans not discover gunpowder?

Mining reasons, they should've dug a bit until they found something good, to not also say that in those times people didn't really care about shit to burn.

>If they had gunpowder, would they have managed to use it effectively as a weapon

No, there's a reason why cannons didn't start to pop out until the XIII century, and that's because of the several alloys cannons were made with, cast iron and wrough iron are examples, and even then they were relatively small to the ones of the later centuries, with bolts that weren't so heavy either, for the exeption of the Ottoman Bombard, which in that time period would've been useless against anyone who didn't live in a town.

> why did the Romans use aqueducts instead of large pumps?

Because it needs someone who then actually pumps water, exploiting gravity was much easier.

>>32133

>Pumps require electricity to work

or wind power, see netherlands

>>32130

Just because they'd been around for a few hundred years and were almost constantly at war, I would have expected them to look for things that they could kill more people with.

>>32132

Source?

>>32133

>Uh, no. They used it for siege engines too. Fireworks are just the most famous bit cus its flashy

It was a joke, anon.

>Pumps require electricity to work son

Not necessarily.

>>32137

>that's because of the several alloys cannons were made with, cast iron and wrough iron are examples

Why were these alloys needed, why couldn't pig iron be used, or bronze etc?

>>32145

Because pig iron is incredibly brittle and bronze heats up extremely quickly.

>>32143

What do eolic wind turbines create?

Oh right, electricity. Retard

>>32146

Bronze is what cannons used to be made of as making one out of wrought iron is at best a tedious business, what with all the forging and welding you'd have to do.

Bronze however is easy to cast, can expand and not explode due to the stresses. The problem is of course weight and cost. Bronze isn't as strong as iron so the cannons had to be heftier.

Bronze was an incredibly popular material for cannons until iron and steel production picked up making the material economically unsuitable.

>>32151

>Bronze is what cannons used to be made

You mean Brass, Bronze's was too malleable for such a workload.

>>32162

>>32162

Most early cannons were made of bronze. Their malleability is what prevents them from turning into bombs.

>>32145

>Just because they'd been around for a few hundred years and were almost constantly at war, I would have expected them to look for things that they could kill more people with.

There's a reason why basic research is considered important. And afaik romans considered it to be mostly useless, which limited the possibilities for applied research.

Or at least that's what I remember hearing in high school or something, so don't quote me on this.

>>32161

>Where the fuck is your source? It took China about 300-400 years from its original intent of fireworks to progress into weaponry. (13th Century was the earliest)

1128, according to >wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_artillery_in_the_Song_dynasty

I wonder how much field artillery would have actually helped the Roman. In wide-open fields, a cannon probably could do very nasty to the enemy lines (assuming the enemy has a line and is not just a mob charging towards you), but I'm curious whether or not cannon would have been of much use in the densely-forested areas of Gaul and Germania

The idea of using a powder in a chamber to create an explosion that propelled a projectile is a little more exotic than we take for granted today. I feel like to many minds it'd amount to "isn't that what a catapult does just more complicated?"

It seems silly to me that the Romans would bother when the tools they had for sieges were more than sufficient, and they were for most of their height very focused on heavy infantry rather than projectiles in terms of open battle.

The Romans, as far as innovation goes, were more impressive in terms of architecture and infrastructure than they were for actually experimenting with new ideas. I feel like, if faced with a big wall, the Romans would be quick to go

"Let's build a giant fucking catapult." Or "Let's try out some kickass siege tower." before they'd experiment with something like gunpowder.

>>32197

Maybe it could have helped a bit, but it most likely wouldn't do much to prevent the collapse of Roman Empire… they already had pretty much the best military so unless it would've made things significantly cheaper, it would not be of great importance.

I hope my grammar isn't too bad.

>>32129

how about greek fire? When was this discovered?

Can the fire be extinguished when you put it inside an aquarium? I've read on the youtube comments that you can douse it with urine and subsequently extinguish it lol. What other methods can you use to extinguish it?

byzantines are technically romans.. so..

>>32206

Supposedly around 670 AD in the Byzantine Empire. That being said, the Byzantine's greek fire wasn't the first flame weapon to be used in history - even the old Assyrians had pots with incendiary substances they would throw at enemy positions or strongholds. What really made greek fire stand out was the siphon used to fire it, which allowed the liquid to be shot without a container.

>Byzantines are technically Romans

I don't think so, Tim

>>32219

>I don't think so, Tim

You think wrong, Jim

>>32224

>>Byzantines: An empire that was culturally and linguistically Greek. Was not ethnically Roman. Mostly Greek emperors with some Macedonian, Syrian and Armenian dynasties.

>>Roman.

>>32145

Advanced metalurgy was required to make guns and cannons that would not crack under the pressures of gunpowder blasts.

Also, the Roman system of fighting worked (at least during the first 200 years of the empire), and the tendency of empires is to not fix something that ain't broke.

>>32236

If youre going to go that way…

-Greek was the lingua franca of the Mediterranean and middle east, and the empire

-Romans borrowed culture from all the people they conquered in a great degree, but the greeks were a special fetish of the romans

-A great amount of the emperors of the roman empires came from North Africa, Syria, Hispania, Gaul, Anatolia, etc.

-The empire was never truly "Roman". Its culture influenced the conquered culture, but the conquered never truly became "romans"

>The empire was ethnically roman

Dont make me laugh, Roman were ethnically Roman, the conquered population didnt disappear only to be replaced for Romans

The "byzantine" empire was an invention of a 15h century german monk/scholar who wanted to discredit it. The Eastern Roman Empire was the eastern portion of the empire that was under the administration of the eastern emperor.

>>32243

>>Greek was the lingua franca of the Mediterranean and middle east, and the empire

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_ancient_Rome#Language

>>The native language of the Romans was Latin, an Italic language in the Indo-European family.

>>Greek was the main lingua franca as it had been since the time of Alexander the Great, while Latin was mostly used by the Roman administration and its soldiers. Eventually Greek would supplant Latin as both the official written and spoken language of the Eastern Roman Empire

>>Romans borrowed culture from all the people they conquered in a great degree, but the greeks were a special fetish of the romans

So did all other empires. What's your point?

Did the Mongols copying the Chinese make the Mongol empire any less Mongol?

>>A great amount of the emperors of the roman empires came from North Africa, Syria, Hispania, Gaul, Anatolia, etc.

True, but many of the emperors who were born outside of Rome were ethnically or part ethnically Roman, like Septimus, Julian and Elagabalus for example.

Also,the leadership of a government does not change the nature of its core population.

Roman Empire = Romans and Italians as Core Population

British Empire = British as Core Population

>>The empire was never truly "Roman". Its culture influenced the conquered culture, but the conquered never truly became "romans"

The empire was never truly "British/Spanish/Dutch." Its culture influenced the conquered culture, but the conquered never truly became "British/Spanish/Dutch"

>>Dont make me laugh, Roman were ethnically Roman, the conquered population didnt disappear only to be replaced for Romans

Yes, and what's your point? It's like saying the British Empire because their conquered populations didn't disappear.

Empires are supposed to be multi-ethnic, but at the top of that hierarchy of ethnicities is the conquering population.

>>The Eastern Roman Empire was the eastern portion of the empire that was under the administration of the eastern emperor.

>>Ostrogorsky: (About 7th century Heraclus era) "Byzantium, although it always remained loyal to the Roman political ideals, and traditions, it is now turning into a Medieval Greek state." (History of the Byzantine state, p. 217)

>>N. Svoronos: "I never manage to find the difference between Byzantium and modern Hellenism" (The method of history, p. 104)

>>Sture Linner: "The Byzantines… were always conscious of their Greek past" (History of the Byzantine civilisation, p. 219)

>>N. David: The Byzantine empire "in 6th century was more Greek than Roman" (p.23) and that Byzantine civilisation is a Greek spiritual world (p. 147 in the evolution of the middle ages)

>>32276

>Did the Mongols copying the Chinese make the Mongol empire any less Mongol?

No, thats my point.

>>The Eastern Roman Empire was the eastern portion of the empire that was under the administration of the eastern emperor.

>>Ostrogorsky: (About 7th century Heraclus era) "Byzantium, although it always remained loyal to the Roman political ideals, and traditions, it is now turning into a Medieval Greek state." (History of the Byzantine state, p. 217)

>>N. Svoronos: "I never manage to find the difference between Byzantium and modern Hellenism" (The method of history, p. 104)

>>Sture Linner: "The Byzantines… were always conscious of their Greek past" (History of the Byzantine civilisation, p. 219)

>>N. David: The Byzantine empire "in 6th century was more Greek than Roman" (p.23) and that Byzantine civilisation is a Greek spiritual world (p. 147 in the evolution of the middle ages)

Im not arguing that the byz were greek culturally, and that as the empire shrinked it became more and more culturally and ethnically greek, but the fact that the people making up the population of the empire weren't the original ethnic population does not mean that it magically becomes another empire.

Think of it like the USA, sure the majority of the population base is descended from western and northern Europe, but (theoretically) as a general rule you are american if you believe in the customs and culture of mainstream american society.

>>32294

>Think of it like the USA, sure the majority of the population base is descended from western and northern Europe, but (theoretically) as a general rule you are american if you believe in the customs and culture of mainstream american society.

Yes, I suspected this was your line of argument. The issue here is proposition nation definition vs the blood and soil nation definition.

Personally, I disagree with this. I think that ethnicity is a very important part of the identity of an empire, and that the loss of such an ethnic identity or the loss of its power transforms that empire into something else.

However, this is not related to the issue of the thread. So I'll just agree to disagree.

>>32296

Alright

I wondered that before and my guess was what was already replied - not enough materials available to be randomly found && discovered + no alloys required for canons.

On a almost unrelated topic that does not deserve its own thread, how come the Romans barely had any archers? Wouldn't that be kinda useful?

>>32351

> I wondered that before and my guess was what was already replied - not enough materials available to be randomly found && discovered + no alloys required for canon

they weren't interested in innovation.

>>32351

Well they did have skirmishers that fought, but since their armies were largely professional I doubt they would recruit peasants as archers. They would most likely have to train these peasants as well and it all doesn't really seem worthwhile considering how the Romans fought

>>32351

They did have archers though not in the legions until maybe a lot later. Archer's and slingers would be found in the Auxilia as the legions were comprised of heavy and light infantry.

>>32351

>no alloys required for canons

Medieval and modern cannon have almost always been made from iron and bronze, I don't see why Romans couldn't have forged or cast gunpowder artillery too.

>how come the Romans barely had any archers?

They did. It's just that the legionary (citizen) soldiers weren't usually trained in the use of bow and arrows, preferring sword, shield, javelin, spear, dagger… This doesn't mean archers, like slingers and horsemen, weren't on the battlefield, just that they weren't part of OG Roman military traditions – and probably Roman historians gave less of a shit about them for this reason.

>>32351

The Roman core units were always heavy infantry, with auxiliaries (often hired mercenaries) taking the role of missile infantry and the like.

IIRC Crete supplied virtually all of Rome's archers at one point, but they later "outsourced" this to other regions like Thrace and Anatolia.

>>32386

iron have impurities and bronze require to be smelted to be shaped into a canon, if the romans had more advanced metalurgy compared of what the europeans had on the middle ages, roman legions would have wielded longer swords.

>>32408

i disagree. the gladius was designed to work in dense formations so that you could stab without having to worry about blocking on either side, whereas longswords were designed for individual combat

The old "byzantines where/where not romans"? Just as a note. Roman by them was a political identity, "roman citizenship" Remember Caracalla? All free men in the empire being acquiring citizenship?

The "Byzantine" empire was just the continuing roman state centered around the greek speaking provinces. The political institution, the sequence of rulers, all came from Augustus to Constantine. They where romans because they lived and ruled what remained of the empire of the romans. Simple as that.

If we want to consider the Roman Empire being based in Rome, it ended long before 476, when the capital moved to Mediolanum and Ravena.

>>32469

Yeah, I'm reading history of venice now, after the fourth crusade and getting fiefs from the "byzantines", the title they named themselves is:

"Lord of a Quarter and Half a Quarter of the Roman Empire".

>>32206

again with my question about greek fire if it can be extinguished by other means and how?

>>32474

it can only be extinguished by using wet leather to suffocate it

>>32420

>Obviously, so what?

you need a better quality iron to make a canon which can sustain the execution of various shots, just folding the iron wont work much, unless they had a supply of spanish iron or other natural resource of higher quality iron.

>See above.

as far as i know, romans didnt had huge smelters neither the had a great supply of tin

>if the romans had more advanced metalurgy compared of what the europeans had on the middle ages, roman legions would have wielded longer swords.

>Bullshit.

Was just an example, since on middle ages you can see a development on metalurgy that allowed the crafting and use of longer weapons, better armour that resulted on smaller shields.

now, you tell how the romans would had crafted a podwer canon whit the techonology that they had available at the time?

>>32488

> Was just an example, since on middle ages you can see a development on metalurgy that allowed the crafting and use of longer weapons, better armour that resulted on smaller shields.

that was due to significant tactical differences, not metallurgical ones.

>>32408

>Romans not having longer swords because they were technologically inept

It's a little late for you to be up what with school tomorrow ain't it?

>>32469

This

>>32474

It can only be extinguished with oil :^) I remember hearing someone saying the Byzantines had shilled this notion to the turks

>>32488

they were able to use Cast Iron for cannons so making ones out of wrought Iron could work which they did in the high middle ages

>didn't have a huge supply of tin

They did actually, Galacia, Brittany, and Cornwall have large amounts of tin that were being shipped to the Mediterranean all the time.

>Was just an example, since on middle ages you can see a development on metalurgy that allowed the crafting and use of longer weapons, better armour that resulted on smaller shields.

Nigger "Longer Swords" have been around since the Iron age has, making a sword a half foot longer isn't a miraculous technological step, people had shorter swords because formations were a thing.

>>32490

Metallurgical, there wasn't any sword, armor, gun, or cannon that a 16th century german could produce that a roman could not. They all had access to the same resources, the same basic techniques. Most of the modern alloys we use today were invented in the last 100 years, the first alloy steel was mass produced in the 1870's. Before that cirtually all steel used and made was just carbon steel aside from a few places that made vanadium steel

They couldn't make cast iron for one.

>>32532

Cast iron isn't usable for weapons and wasn't used in europe until the 1400's, in england until the 1500's a little earlier than what I said.

However cast iron isn't very difficult to make, it's just one of the things that never occurred to anyone, although the Chinese had it for almost 2000 years before Europe. It is one of the reasons the Chinese were able to do so well, why forge plowshares when you can just cast one? Sure the cast ones break but they were substantially cheaper than a wrought iron one.

I still stand by my point.

>>32219

*technically* the Byzantines were the Roman Empire. They were the eastern Roman Empire, even if they did adopt greek and shit

>>32490

>all iron is iron

you whish, but i had top be more precise, i was talking about iron ore, more pure iron ore is better iron, nowdays it doesnt matter because we can smelt the iron and sepearate the impurities from the iron. Folding iron isnt as effective as just smelting it

this is a spot the were the technical sphere interacts whit the humanities sphere

>gunpowder

Who needs that bullshit when you have grenades filled with sulphur and scorpions?

>>32561

is this legit?

>>32206

wasnt greek fire like some kind of petrol ?

>>32129

History is not a 4X game. You don't invent gunpowder by focusing your research on the military tree. The Romans didn't discover gunpowder because they didn't have a tradition of alchemy that led to combining random shit with other random shit to see what it would do.

>>32474

>again with my question about greek fire if it can be extinguished by other means and how?

Most likely it was an oil based liquid, at best with some sort of pyrogenic additive.

What's going to happen: once the oil burns, splashing water on it only makes it float on top of water in blobs. It continues to burn, spreads around even more, then re-ignites any spots that stuck to something and were submerged for a moment.

What's unique about this: nothing.

So the treatment is just like with any oil-based fire: smother with sand or something wet that doesn't catch fire the moment it dries up a little.

>>35096

no it's not and if you really thought it was bait, why wouldn't you sage the post?