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

On Tue, 23 May 2006 20:53:09 +0200, Dr A. N. Walker wrote
(in article <e4vlml$dvq$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):

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 ...]?

sure, but even in those two cases, they never had to try a seige. sulla had
more problems than marius, but that was all outside rome: when carbo
scarpered and pompey's father died, the opposition slunk off and sulla
marched in welcomed with open arms. are there any cases of real sieges of
rome? i don't know much about early rome or later empire.. from what little
i've read, i can't imagine rome holding out the way for instance nola
repeatedly did..

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.

what makes you sure? just in terms of being prepared for a siege? or was
there someone other army within reach? aiui, cannae was at most a week's
march away from rome, probably closer..

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.

where were the experienced ones? my knowledge of this period is hazy.
aiui, the loss of the centurions would have been much more a problem for the
next general than that of the mediocre leaders..


[...]. 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?

that's part of it, i imagine.. also i don't think rome is in a good strategic
position to withstand a siege.. also, i recall pompey's father poisoning
subura's water supply with the unsanitary conditions in his camp outside,
causing mass outbreaks of disease.. this would suggest a lack of a good
siege-resistant water-supply.. admittedly rome has a good port and they
probably had control of the seas..

i just don't know whether rome could have withheld a siege, or for how long,
or how easily.. i'm prodding for info, because you seem very confident that
they could.. where to me there seems to be room for at least a little
scepticism...

Imagine
trying to secure London ...?

not a job i'd want!

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.

you're probably right.

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.

i'm not clear what you mean, or even whether this is early or late roman
history!

[...] 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!

sure, ain't progress a wonderful thing? :-)

It gives you
increased respect for the people who *did* travel in those days and
write about their experiences,

indeed.

even if they did mostly do it as part
of an invading army, and mostly told extremely tall tales when they
got back.

there were also the likes of marius taking upon themselves years long
fact-finding missions, and top exiles and knights that regularly wrote report
back to their patrons or to the senate..

to infinity and beyond.
--
the auroran sunset / tithonus / fennel
personal website: http://www.aoiko.net/
party: http://www.emancipationparty.org/
work: http://www.abelard.org/

.

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: Were the Japanese trying to surrender for months before Hiroshima?
    ... my impression was the rome never keep an army at home, ... Was it not rather that it was forbidden to bring an army ... roman armies elsewhere in italy. ... mount any sort of siege or assault unless virtually unopposed. ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: St George and the Aggy Dragon
    ... Well, one could possibly see a link as there> is no actual contemporary evidence that St. George actually existed, so> one could argue that discussing him on a group concerned with fictional> characters is indeed appropriate. ... Some level of Roman citizenship was granted to any> nation with exceptionally strong ties to Rome, ... he creates a fictional background to> place his origins in Rome rather than what is now Spain. ... the emperors, the Italian senatorial families were assiduously ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: Greenspan, a common criminal
    ... Rome fell because without the land taxes that the nobles were ... Rome fell because businessman needed peace to GROW the economy - but as ... The barbarians were made up of ex roman soldiers and generals who helped ...
    (sci.econ)