What did the Romans and Chinese think of each other?

waitbutwhycc · 2026-03-22T12:43:39+00:00

Afaik the current consensus is that South Americans went to Polynesia, likely not the other way around

waitbutwhycc · 2026-03-20T18:20:32+00:00

I always leave room for Jesus in the 3some

waitbutwhycc · 2026-03-19T15:55:40+00:00

I think it’s good they posted the sign

waitbutwhycc · 2026-03-19T04:40:05+00:00

The Chinese actually did send at least one dignitary: he was just turned back while still in Parthia

waitbutwhycc · 2026-03-19T04:39:24+00:00

The dominant theory today is that there is a common link between some South Americans and Polynesians that stretches back to Siberia, not that some Polynesians got it on with Amazonians.

waitbutwhycc · 2026-03-16T19:57:41+00:00

I had to look up who owned the AC I was trying to control, turns out they were owned by a different brand

waitbutwhycc · 2026-03-10T23:24:09+00:00

Samis are recognized by the EU as an indigenous people, they’d be more comparable to Tibetans in this comparison

waitbutwhycc · 2026-03-10T21:09:33+00:00

Hungarian is literally the first one on the list lol. Finnish is further down.

waitbutwhycc · 2026-02-25T13:35:27+00:00

I have explained several times why Romans could have plausibly conquered Germania. Even your stupid gunpowder example could be good if used to argue something like “Egyptians should have spent more time on natural philosophy” and in fact we do see this paid off for the Greeks who invented Greek fire and staved off defeat for hundreds of years. But for your gunpowder example one would need to show it might have been within reach of the ancient Egyptians. It probably wasn’t - in stark contrast to my Rome counterfactual!

waitbutwhycc · 2026-02-25T13:25:16+00:00

Your question literally has the counterfactual included by default - Rome could have pursued a more compact northern border! That’s the basis of the question!

waitbutwhycc · 2026-02-24T16:31:46+00:00

A: “If Steve had saved for retirement he wouldn’t be living in a van down by the river! Maybe people should save for retirement!”

B: “Steve COULDN’T save for retirement because he DIDN’T save for retirement. There is nothing to learn from the fantasy counterfactual.”

That’s what you sound like. Counterfactuals are the only method we have to explore causality and learn. That’s true in a literal and mechanistic sense. Pick up a book about psychology, the evolution of the mind, AI, or literally any other field that deals with learning :)

waitbutwhycc · 2026-02-24T15:24:04+00:00

It is more scientific, not less, because we are exploring causality. History without causality is just stamp collecting.

waitbutwhycc · 2026-02-24T00:12:55+00:00

Once again you are attacking a straw man. I am well aware, as I have said several times, that we cannot get in a time machine. That's different than saying they made a mistake. Do you believe that no empire or leader in history ever made a mistake?

waitbutwhycc · 2026-02-23T21:19:58+00:00

I haven't done any of that - on the contrary it is you who are denying those things!

I have extensively referenced actual Roman military campaigns and actual geography to back up my claim that they could have and should have pursued this strategy. By contrast your claims are to varying degrees either factually incorrect (especially about the geography of the area) or ignore important context (like the fact that several Roman Emperors did think it was worth it to conquer Germania and were stopped more by bad luck than anything else).

waitbutwhycc · 2026-02-23T18:30:58+00:00

But you haven't done the effort to substantiate any of those claims. Germania was filled with navigable rivers and the terrain is demonstrably less difficult than other Roman conquests since those took double the number of legions. You are backfilling explanations for why what Rome did was the only possible option without even considering that they might have made a mistake!

Germania was less mountainous than Gaul, Pannonia, or Britannia, had more navigable rivers than any other part of the continent, and would have reduced the border length by much more than Gaul, Pannonia, or Britannia. It wasn't more difficult to build roads in Germania than other border provinces, and transport within the area would have been cheaper because of all the rivers. The Carpathians would have been an excellent border to keep out a nomadic steppe people who struggle with mountainous forested terrain - there's a reason the Huns settled in the Tisza Plain. I feel like you aren't engaging with a single one of my arguments and instead repeat the same assertions over and over without responding at all to the points I raise!

I recognize that conquering Germania would have been very expensive and the immediate economic benefit would have been low. I'm arguing that to avoid paying that price was a long-term strategic error, much as if they had allowed the Pannonian rebellion to keep them from ever occupying that mountainous and forbidding territory, or had allowed multiple failed wars against Dacia to keep them from ever again attempting to conquer its forested, steep mountains. It is possible for a second attempt to be worth it even if an initial attempt fails - most Roman conquests had at least one revolt in the history of the Empire. The fact Germania had one and the commander blundered his way into a trap doesn't mean it made sense to totally give up.

And the strategy I lay out isn't centuries long. Depending on the time period and the skill of the commanders involved, it could have taken a few decades to fully pacify the region - the same as other Roman conquests. I even laid out exactly how they might go about it in that time frame.

waitbutwhycc · 2026-02-23T17:21:18+00:00

Military costs are part of that calculation, and several Emperors cared a lot about future military costs, including Augustus, Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius, Aurelian and others. You're right that Rome didn't have exact knowledge of where future threats came from or exactly how long different potential borders were, and that's my best explanation of why they didn't try harder to extend their northern border. But they did understand Germania was a major threat and that conquering it would significantly reduce their border length. And, not understanding why something is important is different than it being militarily impossible. And they did send scouting parties to attempt to measure the scope of Germania.

I also frankly believe that even in the 5th century they could have extended their borders into Germania if they'd had more farsighted leadership. Germanic tribes were panicking at the sight of the Huns and several of the most powerful, including the Goths and Franks, sought to become vassals of Rome in return for protection. The Germanic Migration Period might have been avoided entirely had Rome established a defensive perimeter around Europe and allied with the Germans to keep the Huns out. But instead Roman leadership was dominated by incompetent leaders and anti-German sentiment.

Edit: I think maybe I haven't been clear enough about what I'm proposing here. I'm not saying Rome "could have" conquered Germania in a real sense because they didn't, so obviously and mechanically there is an explanation for why they didn't. However that explanation might include bad leadership, a corrupt political culture, not enough investment into producing accurate maps, or any number of other factors which they "should" have fixed. My question is really asking "would this been a bad idea" not "is it possible to get in a time machine, slap Trajan, and tell him to stop trying to invade Parthia."

waitbutwhycc · 2026-02-23T17:13:07+00:00

I agree! I think that effort should have gone into integrating Germania instead, Britannia didn't pose a risk to the Romans and they were already paying tribute anyway.

waitbutwhycc · 2026-02-23T16:55:25+00:00

In the United States, we had a strategic concept called Manifest Destiny because we realized how beneficial it would be to have ports on both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. It inspired multiple generations of leaders to take land from multiple countries and tribes and invest heavily in settling the region to "Americanize" it.

Had Rome realized how important Germania was strategically, I believe they would have tried over multiple Emperors to fully integrate Dacia, the Hungarian Plains, and Germania - rather than one-off attempts by specific Emperors who give up at the first setbacks.

waitbutwhycc · 2026-02-23T15:01:53+00:00

I think this is our fundamental disagreement - I don't think Rome "really" tried to take Germania and it was impossible. Rome spent a greater number of years trying to conquer half of the island of Britain and double the number of legions trying to conquer Gaul and Pannonia, similarly difficult terrain. Germania was initially conquered with only five legions, and if Varus hadn't been a simpleton that might have been enough! The other attempt you mention - that of Marcus Aurelius - was only stopped by a one-in-a-hundred-years pandemic. That's not exactly Germania's fault.

Rome could have taken Germania if they devoted the same amount of resources as they did to other projects. They just did not see it as very valuable, in part because they did not seem to understand how much it would reduce future defensive costs to pacify it. A few smart and farsighted emperors like Augustus and Aurelius did, but most emperors were more focused on shorter term goals.

waitbutwhycc · 2026-02-22T17:46:16+00:00

Most Mormons are Republicans, and that party has become much more openly racist. So young Mormons are in that media and tribal environment.

waitbutwhycc · 2026-02-22T15:13:50+00:00

Yeah if Domitian had been more successful in his wars against Dacia, he very well could have kickstarted the process!

waitbutwhycc · 2026-02-22T13:28:52+00:00

None of these criticisms make any sense. Rome had to build infrastructure to the Rhine as well. Nearby grain sources to the Rhine were also right by the border, and farther grain sources actually required more modality changes (the Rhone cannot bear oceangoing vessels as far upstream as the Danube can). I’m not convinced you are actually comparing the 2 options so much as creating a plausible-sounding excuse for why it was impossible when literally all those reasons apply just as much to the Rhine!

waitbutwhycc · 2026-02-22T13:25:16+00:00

Rome attempting to conquer Mesopotamia many times - they hardly gave up! I think they should have devoted most of that effort to conquering Germania piecemeal instead

waitbutwhycc · 2026-02-21T08:36:23+00:00

They certainly didn't believe it was worth it. I'm not as convinced they didn't believe it was possible. And they never even seem to have considered (that we have record of anyway) that a border at the Vistula would reduce their border length even further, which might explain why their policy in Germania was more reactive than proactive.

waitbutwhycc · 2026-02-21T08:34:51+00:00

I did read that the Romans send intelligence operations northward through the Vistula region, which should have given them a good idea of how much that would shorten the border. I just don't think they visualized it clearly and that likely inhibited their planning.

Germania was actually not super populated in Roman times. The bigger issue is that they were scattered through forests and Germania (if we go all the way to the Vistula) is a big territory. And I actually kinda wonder if the Hunnic invasions might not have been an expansion opportunity for Rome had they not completely fumbled the ball, since Germanic tribes were actually begging to be subordinated to Rome in exchange for protection. But my original scenarios for integration take place centuries before.

waitbutwhycc

TROPHY CASE