Re: Were the Japanese trying to surrender for months before Hiroshima?

In article <0001HW.C097D9C2004CE802F058A530@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
the auroran sunset <upm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...] But Rome was a strongly-defended city, and I think
it's doubtful whether Hannibal had the men or supplies to mount a long
siege.
my impression was the rome never keep an army at home, although they did have
weapons supplies in various of the temples and richer senators' homes, so
could call up and arm a militia.

Was it not rather that it was forbidden to bring an army
into the city [until Marius and Sulla re-wrote the rules ...]?

i haven't looked at this closely, but my
impression was that all that stopped anyone and everyone taking rome was
roman armies elsewhere in italy. perhaps i'm misunderstanding.

Cannae is quite a long way from Rome. I'm sure Hannibal's
cavalry could have got to Rome before it was fully defended, but
that's very risky -- firstly because his infantry would have been
left vulnerable [at least to harassment, if not to proper battle],
secondly because the cavalry alone couldn't have done much to
mount any sort of siege or assault unless virtually unopposed.
By the time the whole Carthaginian army got there, I'm sure a
proper defence could have been mounted. But it was still the
only real chance that Hannibal had.

Even after Cannae, Rome was not short of troops, it just had
them in the wrong places; and it still had control of the sea.
it wasn't short of man-power, but i thought it was short of trained trooped.
istr they also lost large number of veteran centurions at cannae, although
that was a problem that became more significant much later.

Presumably the best part of 1000 centurions! Hundreds of
consuls, senators, knights, .... In those sorts of terms, it was
a disaster almost without parallel [ie, exc Flodden, 1513, a year
that will resonate with at least one (other) regular poster]. But
the Roman army at Cannae was itself rather thrown together, and
I'd guess that many of the best and most experienced troops and
commanders were elsewhere.

[...]. as i said above, i may well be misunderstanding how defendable
rome itself was.. but if so, why do the romans panic every time they hear
someone is marching on them, where other town just shut themselves up for a
siege? perhaps those other cities panic also, but we don't have the relevant
sources!

Possibly Rome was just too big to "shut up" easily? Imagine
trying to secure London ...? And of course Hannibal [in particular]
was an unknown bogeyman. A barbarian, with an invincible army, and
a secret weapon, and probably headed this way .... A day or two of
panic is understandable. After that, calmer and more stoic heads
prevailed. Saying that has just reminded me of the story about the
Roman Senate deciding, when Rome was sacked, that only fighting men
should be allowed into the citadel, and sitting there calmly waiting
to be slaughtered. Not a fashionable attitude for modern politicos.

[...] that's another aspect of those times i find
interesting: just how little even the leaders seemed to know about the rest
of the world.

If we didn't have TV/radio/newpapers/telegraph, any transport
faster than a horse, many decent roads, and if there were hostile
tribes over most of the world, we too might be a little short of
knowledge about happenings more than a few miles away! It gives you
increased respect for the people who *did* travel in those days and
write about their experiences, even if they did mostly do it as part
of an invading army, and mostly told extremely tall tales when they
got back.

--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
anw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.

Relevant Pages

  • WW1 Generals and lessons learned by Roman Army
    ... "Scipio's Reforms of the Army ... thereby also to the wellfare and survival of Rome, ... Undoubtedly the Roman legionaries were the best troops of ... Henceforth the Roman soldiers would be led by clever men seeking to ...
    (sci.military.moderated)
  • Re: Were the Japanese trying to surrender for months before Hiroshima?
    ... i don't know much about early rome or later empire.. ... sacked by the Gauls, and any number of other events. ... there someone other army within reach? ... Roman Senate deciding, when Rome was sacked, that only fighting men ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: OT: WWII: little known facts
    ... "After the fall of Rome, ... the Adriatic into Yugoslavia, then Vienna, Budapest, and Prague. ... General Mark Clark's army was halted and weakened by removing ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)
  • Re: OT: WWII: little known facts
    ... General Mark Clark's army was halted and weakened by removing ... After taking very heavy losses at Monte Cassino, Clark's worn out men reached Rome on June 4, 1944, two days before D-Day. ... It would have been ludicrous to denude Italy of American forces and transport them across the Adriatic to attack Yugoslavia. ... All available ships had already been scavenged for the Normandy invasion. ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)
  • Re: Were the Japanese trying to surrender for months before Hiroshima?
    ... i don't know much about early rome or later empire.. ... was there a defending army inside? ... the first two, even against roman armies.. ... Brennus and the Gauls won a battle just outside ...
    (uk.politics.misc)