Casualty ratios

[chuck]

Onto their enemies even the Romans didn't always have words for what they sometimes do.

Not true. There is in fact a host of words for it,

Jorit

For it? Singular? Are you sure the Romans have a word for each and everything they've ever done at one time or another?

Admittedly, something is decidedly off with the Romans and the Jews.

Under standard Roman policy there should be noone left after the 66 Jewish war to take up arms ever again. Yet already under Trajan there are massive disturbances in Alexandria, Cyprus and even in the Western part of the empire, and less than a generation later there is Bar Kochba, and one gets the impression of 66 all over again. For some reason unknown to us the Romans were very lenient towards the Jews.

Josephus claimed that 3 Romans Legions killed 1.1 million Jews during the year 68. We might assume whatever the difference in ideology, the Romans were competitive with Pol pot in the percentage of country population they extirpated. One only need to extirpate 25% of the population in a country before one outshines, so to speak, Pol Pot. I think it is quite likely that there were fewer than 4 million people in Judea when the Romans killed 1.1 million of them. I don't know about Romans being lenient to the Jews. The Romans were not in the habit of extirpating everyone who came from a rebellious territory, only a high percentage of those who are actually in the rebellious territory. The fact that some Jews were left alive is no indication of excessive leniency.

If 3 Roman legions killed 1.1 million in 1 year alone, then how many Jews could have been wiped out during the the Bar Kochba rebellion when no fewer than 13 Roman legions operated in Judea for at least 2 years?

[chuck]

The Romans were supreme in any relevant sphere of life

By the way - just the other day I was interviewed by a TV crew about Roman close combat tactics.

Jorit

I shall not comment on the psychology that allows one to quote oneself to support one's own position. But it suffices to say that at least in one area Roman supremacy was unchallenged, is unchallenged, and will likely never to be challenged. That is in the ability to conduct its economy so miserably that throughout its 490 year existence it probably never managed a single year of trade surplus. Instead Rome probably bled no less than 7000 tons of gold to the rest of the world, on account of its its inability to match imports of desirable goods from elsewhere with the manufacture of superior, exportable goods at home.

[JWintjes]

For it? Singular? Are you sure the Romans have a word for each and everything they've ever done at one time or another?

I guess having words - the correct ones, mind you - for what they did is something where the Romans have a distinct advantage over you...

I don't know about Romans being lenient to the Jews.

I'd say there are a lot of things you don't know about...

The Romans were not in the habit of extirpating everyone who came from a rebellious territory, only a high percentage of those who are actually in the rebellious territory. The fact that some Jews were left alive is no indication of excessive leniency.

The Roman leniency towards the Jews is one of the things on and off in the subject for the last 30odd years. As a matter of fact, were the Jews a Gaulish tribe, we'd never talk about them. Also, it's interesting to see that Roman thinking every now and then seems to circle around the Jews, right down to Julian's strange idea of rebuilding the temple.

Once again, under normal circumstances the history of the Jewish people should by all accounts have ended with the 66 war. That it didn't is very strange.

Jorit

[JWintjes]

I shall not comment on the psychology that allows one to quote oneself to support one's own position.

Hey, that's called "proper academic work ethic"...

But it suffices to say that at least in one area Roman supremacy was unchallenged, is unchallenged, and will likely never to be challenged. That is in the ability to conduct its economy so miserably that throughout its 490 year existence it probably never managed a single year of trade surplus. Instead Rome probably bled no less than 7000 tons of gold to the rest of the world, on account of its its inability to match imports of desirable goods from elsewhere with the manufacture of superior, exportable goods at home.

Now that is a really bizarre idea - how should the Roman empire (incidentally, 490 is a really whacko number... ) "manage" a trade surplus?

With whom?

What for?

Why?

Roman economy goes down the gutter during the crisis of empire. Lack of a "trade surplus" is absolutely not the reason for it.

Jorit

[Ultimo Tiger]

The reason the Jews survived 66 is very simple.

Jews by default are awesome. I defy anyone to disagree with me.

[JWintjes]

The reason the Jews survived 66 is very simple.

Jews by default are awesome. I defy anyone to disagree with me.

They survived because the Romans decided not to do the debellare-Thing...

Jorit

[bengtsson]

Roman rule in Britain was a long golden age. The Barbarians spoiled the party several times, but over almost 400 years it was mostly peace and prosperity. When the Roamns left, it was only a matter of time before barbarian invasion destroyed the whole thing.

Bob B.

[Werner]

Since the ruling kings of Israel pledged their suzerainty to Rome, I imagine they were rather a different kind of Jew than the ones who currently occupy the area.

[Werner]

Roman rule in Britain was a long golden age. The Barbarians spoiled the party several times, but over almost 400 years it was mostly peace and prosperity. When the Roamns left, it was only a matter of time before barbarian invasion destroyed the whole thing.

Bob B.

It was those bloody Vikings and their spam.

[Gerarddm]

What's with 'Gomer'?

The first time I heard that was out of the mouth of Randy Cunningham to describe his takedown of 'Col.Toon', and the thought crossed my mind that it was a dangerously arrogant attitude to have toward a wily enemy. Gomer my ass.

The same can be said about the Taliban and various ilk. Fanatic and crazier than Ned's hatband they may be, but 'Gomer' implies dumb and if they were dumb we wouldn't have lost so many troopers.

By the way, I wonder if Cunningham, sitting in jail for corruption, feels like a 'Gomer' himself these days?

[bengtsson]

Roman rule in Britain was a long golden age. The Barbarians spoiled the party several times, but over almost 400 years it was mostly peace and prosperity. When the Roamns left, it was only a matter of time before barbarian invasion destroyed the whole thing.

Bob B.

It was those bloody Vikings and their spam.

It was those bloody English that spoiled the party. That ,and the non-romaized Celts living in Ireland and modern day Scotland. In the later Roman period in Britain it was said the people had forgotten the art of war,the peace had been for so many generations. King Arthur was a Roman Britain who opposed the barbarian invasions. But, when war is your business, as it was with many Celts and English, well the end was in sight. In fact my Viking ancestors played hell with those victorious English and Celts of the British Isles. We came on the scene over 400 years after the English. But then, the Danes got there first to give the Englsih a run for their money. In short, the British Isles was a very popular place to invade before a real Royal Navy came on the scene.
I enjoy modern English, because it contains so many terms and words of Scandinavian origin.

Bob B.

[Werner]

I think our colleague Walt used Gomer to avoid the more common and accurate term, which unfortunately would not pass muster in this forum. Ask anyone who has served in Afghanistan what the correct term for Taliban is.

As for Deke Cunningham, his fall from grace is not offset by 21 years of military devotion and combat service, including "Ace" and "Topgun" status. He was a nasty man in Congress and if any of the military contractor bribes he took caused the death of a serviceman he should pay the ultimate price. On the other hand, we have to recognize the bribes he took were more-or-less "business as usual" in Congress and he's serving time not because of his corruption but because he wouldn't play the game there.

[chuck]

I guess having words - the correct ones, mind you - for what they did is something where the Romans have a distinct advantage over you...

Pity your imagination always lags behind your vocabulary. I suppose this is what distinguishes bookworms from those who can actually conceive of things genuinely new. If I were a Roman Centurion who just broke through a city wall after a long siege, I would want to be very genuinely creative with the inhabitants who had so thoughtlessly inconvenienced me for so long.

I'd say there are a lot of things you don't know about...

Guilty. But I needn't have made such an admission if I had been willing to sink so low as you and cited myself myself as authority.

As a matter of fact, were the Jews a Gaulish tribe, we'd never talk about them.

Actually, if the Jews had imitated the Gauls in not having a system of writing, we wouldn't be talking about Jews today either.

Once again, under normal circumstances the history of the Jewish people should by all accounts have ended with the 66 war. That it didn't is very strange.

Jorit

I guess adamantly refusing to accommodate and tenaciously holding on to mis-transcribed version of village disputes and tribal myths are behaviors that possess their own Darwinian survival value in the right circumstances.

[chuck]

Now that is a really bizarre idea - how should the Roman empire (incidentally, 490 is a really whacko number... ) "manage" a trade surplus?

With whom?

What for?

Why?

Roman economy goes down the gutter during the crisis of empire. Lack of a "trade surplus" is absolutely not the reason for it.

Jorit

It's been said in some accounts of history of commerce that Rome ran a large and continuous trade deficit in the trade in silk, spice and other luxury goods. Roman accounts from about 200 AD were used to corroborate this. The empire continuously exported large amounts of bullion to the east to offset lack of exportable trade goods that's desired there. When aggregated over the about 490 years of the western empire's existence, the hemorrhage in gold amounted to about 7000 tons, which represented the vast majority of the gold that existed in western world, and a very large portion of the estimated 15000 tons that has been mined in the whole world up to that time. When one takes this into account, then it seems much easier to see why there is such debasement of coinage in the later empire, and why the western world was financially so poor after the end of the western empire.

[Werner]

Actually, if the Jews had imitated the Guals in not having a system of witting, we wouldn't be talking about Jews today either.

I thought the Guals were killed by an alliance of the Jaffa and Stargate Command.

[JWintjes]

It was those bloody English that spoiled the party. That ,and the non-romaized Celts living in Ireland and modern day Scotland. In the later Roman period in Britain it was said the people had forgotten the art of war,the peace had been for so many generations. King Arthur was a Roman Britain who opposed the barbarian invasions. But, when war is your business, as it was with many Celts and English, well the end was in sight.

Actually, by all accounts the Romans spoiled their own party. Certainly it is the constant civil wars that plagued the Western part of the Empire from the very end of the 4th century onwards that took an enormous toll on military resources. Had Constantine III not been content, at least for the time being, with remaining in Gaul and Britain, things may well have played out differently. As it came, what limitanei units remained in Britain soon turned into warbands under local leadedrs, lacking a central military authority. Yet even after Constantine II. defeat all was not lost - had events in Gaul in the middle of the fifth century turned out differently, order in Britain may well have been restored.

Unfortunately, that was not to be, and at the beginning of the sixth century civilization was well below what the Romans found in Britain when Claudius invaded the islands.

Oh, and I'd be careful about King Arthur - there is pretty little (ie nothing ) to substantiate the Arturius-theory.

Jorit

[JWintjes]

Pity your imagination always lags behind your vocabulary.

Hey, at least I have a good excuse for my lack of language skills - I kannicht spreken da Inglish da gut...

I suppose this is what distinguishes bookworms from those who can actually conceive of things genuinely new.

You really think that an engineer can conceive things genuinely new? Funny choice of words - as I said above, I have a good excuse. What's yours?

But I needn't have made such an admission if I had been willing to sink so low as you and cited myself myself as authority.

Hey, are there any other authorities worth to be mentioned? By the way, nice choice of words again...

Actually, if the Jews had imitated the Gauls in not having a system of writing, we wouldn't be talking about Jews today either.

Actually, we do talk about the Gauls, don't we?

I guess adamantly refusing to accommodate and tenaciously holding on to mis-transcribed version of village disputes and tribal myths are behaviors that possess their own Darwinian survival value in the right circumstances.

Interesting theory - I wonder whether the Romans saw it that way...

Jorit

[JWintjes]

It's been said in some accounts of history of commerce that Rome ran a large and continuous trade deficit in the trade in silk, spice and other luxury goods. Roman accounts from about 200 AD were used to corroborate this. The empire continuously exported large amounts of bullion to the east to offset lack of exportable trade goods that's desired there. When aggregated over the about 490 years of the western empire's existence, the hemorrhage in gold amounted to about 7000 tons, which represented the vast majority of the gold that existed in western world, and a very large portion of the estimated 15000 tons that has been mined in the whole world up to that time. When one takes this into account, then it seems much easier to see why there is such debasement of coinage in the later empire, and why the western world was financially so poor after the end of the western empire.

Interesting explanation, but it still remains a bizarre idea, mainly because it is based very, very strange concepts - to put it politely - of how the Roman empire operated both on a political and on a commercial level.

Let's put a few key facts on the debasement of coinage in the Roman empire straight:

1) It's a phenomenon that begins in the early 3rd century roundabout at the end of the Severan dynasty. It's not a late antique phenomenon; late antique emperors (like Diocletian) have to cope with something they don't fully understand and the magnitude of which has been increased manifold by the crisis of empire.

2) The inflation that plagues the third century is caused by a dramatic increase in coin production, which in turn causes a slump both in coin weight and in metal content. Generally speaking, during the fifty years after Septimius Severus, denarii and antonianii lose very roughly about a third in weight, with metal content falling from roundabout 50% to less than 5%.

3) This debasement of the most important coins causes a huge inflation - prices go through the ceiling, and the only two solutions the Romans came up with (produce even more coins or capping prices by imperial decree) both didn't work.

4) The main issue are coins like the denarius and antonianius - silver coins! Gold has precious little to do with the problem of the debasement of the currency, not the least so because gold coins were not widely circulated, but rather used to pay fro troops or for foreign policy purposes.

Finally, at the end of the 5th century the Western world was not "financially poor". Economy based on the circulation of money simply had broken down, which is something different.

Jorit

[Walt]

What's with 'Gomer'?

The first time I heard that was out of the mouth of Randy Cunningham to describe his takedown of 'Col.Toon', and the thought crossed my mind that it was a dangerously arrogant attitude to have toward a wily enemy. Gomer my ass.

The same can be said about the Taliban and various ilk. Fanatic and crazier than Ned's hatband they may be, but 'Gomer' implies dumb and if they were dumb we wouldn't have lost so many troopers.

By the way, I wonder if Cunningham, sitting in jail for corruption, feels like a 'Gomer' himself these days?

In "Navy Specops" early on the term "Gomer" was applied to all the Bad guys in Afganistan for lack of another term. When I was in Vietnam "Gomer" or Gomer Pyle" , "Charlie" ( for VC) etc.was a term of endearment that we sometimes called the VC and NVA and some Marines . these as well as many other not so politically correct names, terms that were mostly used in WW2 and Korea to discribe Asian people.. 'Gomer" is a reference to their stupidity. My Son has different nicknames for the Taliban but they are not fit for this board,,, hence I will use "Gomer".. I first heard this term from my Son back in 2001 and I said the same thing you did about the VC and NVA. I guess somethings never change. I do believe the term is no longer popular for the Taliban as over time some "Very original and creative nicknames" have arrisen many of which are non PC terms .
BTW the Taliban Fighter may be brave and dangerous but from all I've heard as a whole as well as their midlevel leadership they are pretty dumb. Ask a Afganistan Vet I'm sure they will enlighten us all.
Also Randy Cunningham had the right to call his enemy anyname he wished, he earned that right. He was showing his lack of respect for the NVA pilots who were rather dumb and easy targets "on the whole" with a few exceptions like the Gomer he refered to.
Unless you walked a mile in their shoes it sometimes is best not to judge them so harshly eh?

It's like my signature translates..

[Werner]

3) This debasement of the most important coins causes a huge inflation - prices go through the ceiling, and the only two solutions the Romans came up with (produce even more coins or capping prices by imperial decree) both didn't work.

Interesting that these techniques are both considered viable as late as the 60s and 70s of the 20th Century. Johnson paid for the Vietnam War by printing money without any backing, and Nixon used "Wage & Price" controls to try to counter the immense inflationary pressure the additional cash put on the economy.

Ultimately, the only solution for such a crisis is for a country to "grow it's way" out with new companies, new work and new competition, not caps on wages and prices, which essentially "freeze-dried" the economy for six years or so.

Reagan proved a government could spend all it wanted, and on the most unproductive things, if the tax burden is low enough to encourage steady economic growth, something lost on one of the current candidates for US high office. With the current overall tax rate hovering around 50%, we are right at the "tipping point". Expiration of the tax breaks now in place in the next years will put the USA into a strong contraction, while an additional decrease of taxes (say 4-5%) will multiply tax revenue manifold as new business spends the money over and over. People keep making the mistake in thinking that economic growth and tax cuts are a "zero sum" equation, when it has been proven over and over that they're not.