mersenneforum.org

mersenneforum.org (https://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php)
-   Lounge (https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Could a small neighborhood conquer the Roman empire? (https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=27030)

MooMoo2 2021-07-28 06:10

Could a small neighborhood conquer the Roman empire?
 
A few years ago, I checked into a hotel while on a road trip. There was an airport, a car dealership, and a gun range nearby, which were all within biking distance of the hotel. When I checked out a few days later, this (paraphrased) conversation came up:

Hotel clerk: Did you enjoy your stay?
Me: Yeah, this place is awesome! I went off-roading, shooting, and flying on the same day. You know, a tiny fraction of this neighborhood could take probably take down the entire Roman Empire.
Clerk: Really? That sounds like an interesting plot for a book or movie.
Clerk2: Forget it. You'd run out of fuel and ammo before you'd get anywhere near the emperor.
Me: It can be done. All you need is a few dozen men and a time machine...

So let's say you look around the neighborhood and find a time machine and some guys who'd love to join your mission to overthrow Augustus, the first Roman emperor. All of you are sent to the outskirts of a town in northern France in 20 BC. You look around and see the following:

- 50 fit men with military and flying experience
- 50 AR-15 rifles and 100 rounds of ammo per rifle
- 40 Jeep Wranglers with a full tank of gas per Jeep
- 10 R-22 helicopters with a full tank of gas per helicopter
- Several English-Latin and Latin-English dictionaries
- Three days' supply of army rations and bottled water

Suppose that the ancient Romans are immune to all of the diseases brought by the modern soldiers, and that the modern soldiers are immune to all of the diseases that the ancient Romans had. Given those conditions, could the modern "army" form an alliance with some disaffected peasants and slaves, get to Rome, and overthrow the emperor?

axn 2021-07-28 06:37

No.

retina 2021-07-28 07:02

If you have ever been down the Appian Way then you will know that it isn't so easy to get around in ancient Rome. You wouldn't stand a chance, the locals will outsmart you without too much difficulty. Once they figure out the tyres are vulnerable to sharp pointing things then you will be toast.

LaurV 2021-07-28 08:04

[QUOTE=MooMoo2;584170]
- Several English-Latin and Latin-English dictionaries
[/QUOTE]
:lol: Haha, couldn't stop laughing. Why would you need dictionaries? Hit the Roman soldiers with the dictionary in the head? Talk them to death? :rofl:

And the answer (sorry axn (edit, and sorry retina, crosspost)) is yes. Hannibal (almost) conquered Rome with 30 elephants. Only the cleverness of Roman generals stopped the history to have a total different course than we know today. For who doesn't know the story, in short, Hannibal, some small commander during the Punic war, crosed the Gibraltar strait and the Alps with his small army, which included African war elephants, and landed in front of the walls of Rome. The Romans were not prepared to an attack from that direction, because the alps were considered un-crossable at the time, especially for a large army, but the elephants helped a lot. Now, you may not imagine, but an elephant is the equivalent of a heavily armored, modern tank. It can take a 10 meters log in its trunk and make way through Roman army lines like in butter. Additionally, they had iron blades (knives) mounted on tusks, and on laterals, etc. You don't want to get that beast angry. So, the Roman soldiers shitted their pants when they saw the elephants, ran inside of the city walls, and locked the gates tide. A long siege followed, and Rome almost capitulated, except for the fact that some Roman generals decided to put their men on some boats and send them over the sea to hit Hannibal in his house. When he got news that their women and children are slaughtered at home, he couldn't control his army anymore, and they had to retreat in big hurry and go home.

Now, imagine the impact a humvee or helicopter could have. These things won't be stopped by gates, or city walls. Big layer of pants full of shit in all the peninsula, and the smell still could be felt today... Imagine Roman soldiers contemplating three dead comrades, and looking through the holes through 4 layers of shields and 3 helmets caused by the first bullet. You won't need to shot the second. They will all fall in their knees and pray to Jupiter for mercy. Walking into the senate building would just be a breeze.

Dr Sardonicus 2021-07-28 12:01

A time machine? :rolleyes:

As long as you have one of [i]those[/i] things, why attack Caesar Augustus at the height of his power? Why not just go a little farther back in time and kill young Octavian or prevent his birth?

Of course, the resulting change in the course of history might prevent all of [i]our[/i] existences...

I'm not sure [i]why[/i] you might want to change history in such a way.

As to Hannibal, I don't think he ever got near the city of Rome. He won a major military victory at Cannae in August 216 BC. Up to 70,000 Roman soldiers died in that battle, including quite a few of their high-ranking officers. When word of this crushing defeat reached Rome, there was indeed panic in the city. But Cannae is 250 miles from Rome. Hannibal's commander Maharbal urged Hannibal to march on Rome immediately after his victory at Cannae, but Hannibal declined. He didn't have the resources for breaching the walls, or for a prolonged siege.

xilman 2021-07-28 13:30

[QUOTE=MooMoo2;584170]Suppose that the ancient Romans are immune to all of the diseases brought by the modern soldiers, and that the modern soldiers are immune to all of the diseases that the ancient Romans had. Given those conditions, could the modern "army" form an alliance with some disaffected peasants and slaves, get to Rome, and overthrow the emperor?[/QUOTE]Possibly.

Conquer the Empire? I very much doubt it unless you did so very early in history.

By Julius Caesar's time the empire was vast. The remainder of the empire could well have fought back against the tiny band of usurpers.They would have won against your peasants and slaves after the time travellers had run out of fuel and ammo.

Look what happened after the Germanic invaders sacked Rome. The Roman Empire continued for another thousand years before the Muslims inflicted the coup de grace.

MooMoo2 2021-07-28 16:06

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;584192]A time machine? :rolleyes:

As long as you have one of [i]those[/i] things, why attack Caesar Augustus at the height of his power? Why not just go a little farther back in time and kill young Octavian or prevent his birth?
[/QUOTE]
Because I'm looking for a good challenge :smile:

Going further back (300 BC?) to the early days of the Roman Republic would make things too easy, while going forward and overthrowing an 18th century kingdom would be impossible.

kriesel 2021-07-28 16:06

Understaffed and under-supplied. One to one vehicle to person ratio is foolish. (Everyone is busy driving or flying. So no one available for defense of the vehicle or occupant.) So is the absence of mention of backup weapons. Ammo load is quite insufficient; 100 rounds is for a lot of people, a warmup at the practice range.
The puny 55 grain .223 projectile of an AR-15 (30 round mag standard) is more likely to annoy a legionary than disable him, especially after (if?) it penetrates any armor he's wearing. It's suitable for coyote (a 20-50 lb canine) and the bare legal minimum in some states for whitetail deer. At Sandy Hook school it took Lanza ~6 rounds per fatality, on mostly small children wearing normal clothing only. AR-10 (.308 caliber, 150 grain projectile) would be more effective in combat; 20 round mags are standard for that.
In Iran they used motorcycles for two to discourage protests; one drives, the other shoots unarmed protestors. [URL]https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/video-shows-iranian-police-opening-fire-water-protest-78920037[/URL]

R-22: 240 mile range, 110mph cruise, no armaments, ~500 lb payload including pilot and passenger.
Trade them in for some well equipped Apaches.
Or vietnam-war era Hueys with door gunners, capability of 2000 lb of cargo plus crew/passenger complement of four, or jump a wall with an entire equipped squad of 6-8.

Your scenario reminds me of a bit of a SF movie I saw years ago. A man in a long trenchcoat stands in the path of a CSA paywagon, which stops. The several escorts on horseback laugh at him when he tells them if they leave now he'll let them live. Then he flips open his trenchcoat with an Uzi in each hand, goes immediately to full auto fire x 2, and they're all down as they draw their revolvers. Buries the safe full of gold they were hauling, to recover in his own timeframe.

firejuggler 2021-07-28 16:21

You would have a better chance to topple an empire with a dozen of trained snipers, IMHO

MooMoo2 2021-07-28 16:33

[QUOTE=kriesel;584208]Understaffed and under-supplied. One to one vehicle to person ratio is foolish. (Everyone is busy driving or flying. So no one available for defense of the vehicle or occupant.)[/quote]
Couldn't the group split up? 20 vehicles would have both a driver/flyer and a shooter, while the remaining 10 men stay behind to guard the rest of the vehicles.

[quote]
So is the absence of mention of backup weapons. Ammo load is quite insufficient; 100 rounds is for a lot of people, a warmup at the practice range.
The puny 55 grain .223 projectile of an AR-15 (30 round mag standard) is more likely to annoy a legionary than disable him, especially after (if?) it penetrates any armor he's wearing. It's suitable for coyote (a 20-50 lb canine) and the bare legal minimum in some states for whitetail deer. At Sandy Hook school it took Lanza ~6 rounds per fatality, on mostly small children wearing normal clothing only. AR-10 (.308 caliber, 150 grain projectile) would be more effective in combat; 20 round mags are standard for that.
In Iran they used motorcycles for two to discourage protests; one drives, the other shoots unarmed protestors. [URL]https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/video-shows-iranian-police-opening-fire-water-protest-78920037[/URL]

R-22: 240 mile range, 110mph cruise, no armaments, ~500 lb payload including pilot and passenger.
Trade them in for some well equipped Apaches.
Or vietnam-war era Hueys with door gunners, capability of 2000 lb of cargo plus crew/passenger complement of four, or jump a wall with an entire equipped squad of 6-8.
[/QUOTE]
I'll allow weapon and vehicle substitutions, but they'll have to be things you can find at a typical airport, car dealership, and gun range. So a Huey would be out, but an R-44 chopper (instead of an R-22) would be fair game.

LaurV 2021-07-28 16:52

It always amazed me how much weight western people put on Roman empire. I think your school/education/politic/whatever taught you that Romans were kind of demi-gods or something, there is a big propaganda behind that idea of republic and democracy or whatever, I don't know. They were just normal, primitive people (by today standards), living in terror in an enslaved society. Most of them lived at the base of the social hierarchy, they were slaves and pariah. The higher class ruled by terror and maintained a good army to be able to keep their status, while assassinating or poisoning each other periodically. Don't believe everything you see in movies like Gladiator, etc. You are the same as the guys who, having no idea about the size of the numbers we work with, come here periodically showing some factoring algorithm that work nice to split 5561 intor 67*83, that is, you forget the difference in technology that the progress brought in 2000 years. It is like factoring a 200 digit number versus factoring 5561. A thousand super-skilled, super-fighter, super-proud, Japanese samurais were killed by 50 peasants with guns that took 5 minutes to reload after every bullet shot (with a metal rod inserted on top, and a bunch of wool to avoid the bullet falling out of the pipe). A difference in technology of only 50 years. And you talk about attacking a bunch of monkeys with an helicopter. You don't need to shot any bullet, I was silly in the former post thinking you may shot one and won't need the second :razz:

(and yeah, the Hannibal history may be a bit off, I pulled it on my direction, same as the story with the samurais - but you also pulled in yours, did you ever heard the expression "Hannibal ante portas"? :razz: He did march to Rome, after the battle of Canae).

S485122 2021-07-28 16:53

As another poster said : FUEL. Your helicopters and ground vehicles in northern France will stay there because in your conditions you did not include the intendancy. Perhaps the quantity provided of the right amunition in the hands of well trained people could help you, but what will happen once your stock is expanded ?

Jacob

kriesel 2021-07-28 17:29

[QUOTE=LaurV;584217]guns that took 5 minutes to reload after every bullet shot (with a metal rod inserted on top, and a bunch of wool to avoid the bullet falling out of the pipe).[/QUOTE]If you're talking of ~1860s muzzleloaders, reload time is ~1 minute. Wad goes between the gunpowder and the bullet. Bullet is typically soft lead, with a bit of antimony or other metal alloyed in to increase strength a little, and the bullets are sized for an ~.002" interference fit in the bore, requiring considerable force to drive in by hand with the ramrod. A bit of lead gets displaced or shaved off in the loading process. It would be disastrously slow in close-quarters combat against edged weapons. That's why cavalry officers carried revolvers with extra cylinders preloaded, to swap quickly, and swords.
In the case of a misfire, to extract the bullet, after a wait of minutes to reduce the odds of a hang-fire (gun firing after considerable delay) harming the user, a screw tip must be attached to the ramrod and threaded into the bullet to pull it out.

Uncwilly 2021-07-28 22:07

A time machine by necessity is a locale transportation device. You can pop in next to the city you desire and dispatch the target. So a single person could do in the emperor before they take power.

chalsall 2021-07-28 23:12

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;584250]A time machine by necessity is a locale transportation device.[/QUOTE]

I quite regularly move in the time (T) dimension. Forward is easy.

Using one's own legs takes only a /little/ more effort to move Atoms in a gravity well. Also known as translation on a large surface.

Lucid dreaming can be kinda cool.

Are we there yet?

retina 2021-07-28 23:56

How far do you move in eight hours if you remain in your bed the entire time?

No one knows the answer, right? The Earth is rotating on its axis, and orbiting the Sun. The Sun is bobbing up and down in the galaxy, and orbiting the centre. The galaxy is moving amongst our close neighbours and they are collectively moving towards the great attractor. And from there we get lost and don't know much more.

Is there a central point we can reference to say where we were eight hours ago? If not then it is impossible to travel back in time to a place you were previously at since such a place has no known position.

chalsall 2021-07-29 00:13

[QUOTE=retina;584259]How far do you move in eight hours if you remain in your bed the entire time?[/QUOTE]

If I may please reframe the question sightly... Entropy is not your friend...

How much entropy can you reduce by getting off your sorry little ass, and getting to work? A first coffee of the day is encouraged.

[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_(1985_film)"]Acrhibald "Harry" Tuttle. Heating Engineer.[/URL]

Dr Sardonicus 2021-07-29 13:11

[QUOTE=MooMoo2;584207][QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;584192]A time machine? :rolleyes:

As long as you have one of [i]those[/i] things, why attack Caesar Augustus at the height of his power? Why not just go a little farther back in time and kill young Octavian or prevent his birth?
[/QUOTE]Because I'm looking for a good challenge :smile:

Going further back (300 BC?) to the early days of the Roman Republic would make things too easy, while going forward and overthrowing an 18th century kingdom would be impossible.[/QUOTE]You want a good challenge? OK, here's one: Assuming you were successful in overthrowing Caesar Augustus, explain how you would then run things as well, or better, than he did.

PhilF 2021-07-29 13:18

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;584289]You want a good challenge? OK, here's one: Assuming you were successful in overthrowing Caesar Augustus, explain how you would then run things as well, or better, than he did.[/QUOTE]

That's probably not possible because we've been too influenced by history. We know too much about what has happened with the evolution of society, and it is impossible to not draw upon that knowledge while running things.

Dr Sardonicus 2021-07-29 13:23

[QUOTE=PhilF;584290]That's probably not possible because we've been too influenced by history. We know too much about what has happened with the evolution of society, and it is impossible to not draw upon that knowledge while running things.[/QUOTE]Yes, but with the overthrow of Caesar Augustus, a lot of that history would no longer exist.

And so, presumably, our knowledge of that history also would no longer exist :big grin:

MooMoo2 2021-07-29 14:47

[QUOTE=xilman;584194]Possibly.

Conquer the Empire? I very much doubt it unless you did so very early in history.

By Julius Caesar's time the empire was vast. The remainder of the empire could well have fought back against the tiny band of usurpers.They would have won against your peasants and slaves after the time travellers had run out of fuel and ammo.
[/QUOTE]
Going back to c.218 BC would probably be the easiest. Form an alliance with Hannibal's soldiers, and the Romans will have to deal with elephants and rifles...

MooMoo2 2021-07-29 15:01

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;584289]You want a good challenge? OK, here's one: Assuming you were successful in overthrowing Caesar Augustus, explain how you would then run things as well, or better, than he did.[/QUOTE]
I'd keep the social structure mostly the same, but would introduce modern knowledge like germ theory and the steam engine: [url]https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18114087-the-knowledge[/url]

With that advantage, I'd have a reasonable shot at conquering a few continents in 30 years or so.

S485122 2021-07-29 15:12

[QUOTE=MooMoo2;584298]I'd keep the social structure mostly the same, but would introduce modern knowledge like germ theory and the steam engine: [url]https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18114087-the-knowledge[/url]

With that advantage, I'd have a reasonable shot at conquering a few continents in 30 years or so.[/QUOTE]The old dream ... it has been used in countless tales... But technology needs the society that made it possible, just importing it from nowhere (the future ?) will not work in the long term.

Strange that you would'nt change the social structure (slavery, exploitation, abuse of others countries, ...)

Jacob

MooMoo2 2021-07-29 15:36

[QUOTE=S485122;584300]The old dream ... it has been used in countless tales... But technology needs the society that made it possible, just importing it from nowhere (the future ?) will not work in the long term.

Strange that you would'nt change the social structure (slavery, exploitation, abuse of others countries, ...)

Jacob[/QUOTE]
I'm no fan of slavery, but you'd run the risk of getting overthrown or executed if you implemented dramatic changes. Free the slaves, and you'll have a whole bunch of pissed off ex-slave owners that'll be out to get you.

Introducing new technology makes things easier. You're more likely to hold onto power if you improve your citizens' standard of living, and the social changes would follow (obtain gold from the conquered lands, free the slaves, and give the gold to the ex-slaveholders as compensation)

Dobri 2021-07-29 15:43

In matters of importance, the opinion of Clerk3 could be decisive.

chris2be8 2021-07-29 15:44

You should plan to use more appropriate technology. Eg 50 men who know how to ride horses as well as use modern guns, and at least some of them able to speak Latin. Turn up with suitable guns to penetrate the armour they might face (eg 7.62 mm old NATO standard rifles) and at least 1000 rounds per gun. Either bring horses or plan to "acquire" them from the local population. That way you won't run out of fuel before you reach your destination (food for men and horses can be "acquired" locally). And have a few demolition changes to blast open the gates to Rome if necessary.

You might actually do better to travel back to the end of the American Civil War and pick up about 500 ex soldiers from then (and a few blacksmiths etc). They would be able to manufacture more guns and ammunition as needed which would make it easier to keep control once you have taken over the empire.

Once in control introduce new technology as you want. Start with printing with movable type (that is why Europe dominates the world).

Chris

MooMoo2 2021-07-29 16:29

[QUOTE=chris2be8;584303]You should plan to use more appropriate technology. Eg 50 men who know how to ride horses as well as use modern guns, and at least some of them able to speak Latin. Turn up with suitable guns to penetrate the armour they might face (eg 7.62 mm old NATO standard rifles) and at least 1000 rounds per gun. Either bring horses or plan to "acquire" them from the local population. That way you won't run out of fuel before you reach your destination (food for men and horses can be "acquired" locally). And have a few demolition changes to blast open the gates to Rome if necessary.
[/QUOTE]
The typical American neighborhood won't have demolition charges, so you can't bring those back. But bringing back horses and horseback riders (you'd still be limited to 50 men) would be OK. Latin speakers are rare, so I'll only allow one Latin speaker in that group.

[QUOTE=kriesel;584208]Understaffed and under-supplied. One to one vehicle to person ratio is foolish. (Everyone is busy driving or flying. So no one available for defense of the vehicle or occupant.) So is the absence of mention of backup weapons.[/QUOTE]
I'll allow a .357 Magnum (also with 100 rounds of ammunition) as an additional/backup weapon for each person.

xilman 2021-07-29 16:38

[QUOTE=MooMoo2;584298]I'd keep the social structure mostly the same.[/QUOTE]Ah, so you do believe in autocracy and not democracy.

I knew we would get an answer in the end.

Bottom Quark 2021-07-29 16:40

[QUOTE=S485122;584218]As another poster said : FUEL. Your helicopters and ground vehicles in northern France will stay there because in your conditions you did not include the intendancy.[/QUOTE]
Couldn't you use horses (and/or any other animals or people) to tow those vehicles until they're within striking distance of Rome?

retina 2021-07-29 16:49

[QUOTE=Bottom Quark;584311]Couldn't you use horses (and/or any other animals or people) to tow those vehicles until they're within striking distance of Rome?[/QUOTE]I think you misunderstand the roads of ancient Rome and their ability to be used by modern vehicles. You won't get very far no matter how many "naive locals" you could trick into helping you.

kriesel 2021-07-29 17:22

[QUOTE=MooMoo2;584308]The typical American neighborhood won't have demolition charges, so you can't bring those back. Latin speakers are rare.
...
I'll allow a .357 Magnum (also with 100 rounds of ammunition) as an additional/backup weapon for each person.[/QUOTE]Depends on the neighborhood. My father used dynamite on the farm to remove an old silo foundation.
Within an hour's drive in several directions there are places to buy black powder or nitrocellulose by the pound container.

Most older Catholics knew and may remember some Latin. My sister studied it, and taught me some, beyond Latin masses. Plus we learned the Roman numbers in grade school. (~MCMLXV)

Again with the undersupplying. A single metal ammo box will hold several hundred rounds of .357 or 9mm or .45 still in retail packaging, or over 1000 in some calibers in loose bulk. The qualified personnel will mostly want handguns & handgun ammo of [URL="https://www.unclesamsmisguidedchildren.com/usmc-rules-gunfighting-complete-list/"]caliber that begins with a 4[/URL], and reloads at 10 or more rounds per mag in a second or two. One-handed if need be.

Re Roman road widths, "actual widths have been measured at between 3.6 feet (1.1 metres) and more than 23 feet (7.0 metres)." [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_roads#Practices_and_terminology[/url]
Grade: "Gradients of 10%–12% are known in ordinary terrain, 15%–20% in mountainous country."
Compare to 6% max on the US Interstate system; 12 feet/lane x 2 lanes/direction plus 4 foot minimum paved shoulder. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_standards[/url]

retina 2021-07-29 17:31

As an alternative to all the use of force, violence and generic brute force methods, you could just be patient and wait a few hundred years for the empire to collapse all by itself.

Waiting a few hundred years is easy since all you need to do it change the destination date on the time machine.

ixfd64 2021-07-29 21:02

Somewhat relevant: [url]https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/k067x/could_i_destroy_the_entire_roman_empire_during[/url]

Uncwilly 2021-07-29 21:49

Explosives of various sources can be ISRU items. Most of the weapons would be covered under the concept of "I don't have to run faster than the bear, I just have to run faster than you." Stainless steel shields and armor, kevlar, sutures, sulfa drugs, IR googles, locally sourced items (IEDs), etc. could make for a very effective commando unit. You don't need a tank, just something better than the foe. A single Spanish Armada warship would obliterate a flotilla of triremes. No need for a nuclear powered sub or a a WW II battleship. Most of the Spanish warship tech would be maintainable in 200 BC.

LaurV 2021-07-30 03:28

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;584347]... would be covered under the concept of "I don't have to run faster than the bear, I just have to run faster than you."[/QUOTE]
Haha, that is brilliant, I didn't hear it before.

Putting gasoline on fire: Why would you need to free the slaves? The slavery empires were the most productive types of societies in history, compared to the production means, ways and tools available at the time. What the hack, they build pyramids and Chinese walls with ropes and pulleys, and we, in the technological society, can't even wipe our asses because we go to the toilet with the mobile phone to watch youtube during sh!tting and we have both hands busy scrolling and typing.

In fact, if I would be able to go back to time and create a pink future for me there, I would try to change as less as possible, to make sure the future won't change so much so I can still, in the future, be born, find the time machine, blah blah blah. It would be kind of nightmare-ish, I'll have to be even more careful than [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Eternity"]Andrew Harlan[/URL].

Dr Sardonicus 2021-07-30 13:34

[QUOTE=MooMoo2;584298]I'd keep the social structure mostly the same, but would introduce modern knowledge like germ theory and the steam engine: [url]https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18114087-the-knowledge[/url]

With that advantage, I'd have a reasonable shot at conquering a few continents in 30 years or so.[/QUOTE]Since you'd keep the social structure "mostly the same," your objective in overthrowing the existing government appears to be merely replacing the old boss with the new boss - yourself.

Why you would want to reign over an empire in a world 2000 years in the past - though, arguable, not [i]our[/i] past - is beyond me. You would give up practically every technical advance since the time of your incursion. Given the alteration of history you would wreak, it seems likely to me that your future would no longer be the future you came from. Your present would no longer be our past, and your future would no longer be our present. You would never be able to come back.

Apparently you would rather fantasize about using a time machine to take over the world of 20 centuries ago, and introducing modern technology to make life easier for its people, than doing anything to make life easier or better for the people of the world we're actually living in. Have you given up on the present world?

I would also point out that by the middle of the Nineteenth Century, the steam engine had been invented and was coming into wide use, obviating the need for muscle power in many tasks. And yet, some American states rebelled and tried to secede from the Union, in order to preserve the idea of white supremacy and the institution of slavery. It took a bloody war to put a stop to slavery. And, alas, white supremacy and its manifestations persist in the United States to this day.

xilman 2021-07-30 14:21

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;584398] It took a bloody war to put a stop to slavery. And, alas, white supremacy and its manifestations persist in the United States to this day[/QUOTE]
In the US.

It is worth remembering that the British Empire ended slavery over 30 years earlier and Brazil around 30 years later. Neither required bloody wars.

Perhaps US society might be less toxic today if the American Colonies had been given (not taken) independence at roughly the same time as Canada and Australia.

chris2be8 2021-07-30 15:33

If I could travel back in time to make one change to history I would head for Sarajevo in 1914 to prevent the assination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. That would indirectly save over 200M lives.

Chris

Dr Sardonicus 2021-07-30 16:41

[QUOTE=xilman;584404]It is worth remembering that the British Empire ended slavery over 30 years earlier and Brazil around 30 years later. Neither required bloody wars.[/quote]Yes, and Russia abolished serfdom in 1868 without a war.

Abraham Lincoln had hoped that slavery in the US would wither away if it was prevented from expanding to other States. From his second inaugural address: [quote]<snip>
Both parties deprecated war but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.

One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves not distributed generally over the union but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen perpetuate and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.
<snip>[/quote][quote]Perhaps US society might be less toxic today if the American Colonies had been given (not taken) independence at roughly the same time as Canada and Australia.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what you mean. Canadian independence (self-governance) came in 1867, and Australian independence in 1901 - both being after the US Civil War.

It might be worth remembering that the British penal colony in what is now Australia was only established in 1788, which is after the US was already independent.

MooMoo2 2021-07-30 19:49

[QUOTE=retina;584319]As an alternative to all the use of force, violence and generic brute force methods, you could just be patient and wait a few hundred years for the empire to collapse all by itself.

Waiting a few hundred years is easy since all you need to do it change the destination date on the time machine.[/QUOTE]
It would probably be harder (and possibly require more violence) to create an empire from scratch than to take over an existing empire.

MooMoo2 2021-07-30 20:13

[QUOTE=kriesel;584318]The qualified personnel will mostly want handguns & handgun ammo of [URL="https://www.unclesamsmisguidedchildren.com/usmc-rules-gunfighting-complete-list/"]caliber that begins with a 4[/URL][/QUOTE]
[Quote]
25. Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with a “4.”

*****

US Navy Rules for Gunfighting
1. Adopt an aggressive offshore posture
2. Send in the Marines
3. Drink Coffee

US Air Force Rules for Gunfighting
1. Kiss the wife goodbye
2. Fly to target area, drop bombs, fly back
3. Grill some burgers and drink beer

US Army Rules for Gunfighting
1. See USMC Rules for Gunfighting
2. Add 30 days
3. Hope the Marines already destroyed all meaningful resistance
[/quote]
:rofl:

xilman 2021-07-31 13:49

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;584422]I'm not sure what you mean. Canadian independence (self-governance) came in 1867, and Australian independence in 1901 - both being after the US Civil War.[/QUOTE]

Each of which were decades after 1776.

xilman 2021-07-31 13:50

[QUOTE=chris2be8;584412]If I could travel back in time to make one change to history I would head for Sarajevo in 1914 to prevent the assination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. That would indirectly save over 200M lives.

Chris[/QUOTE]WWI was inevitable. Sarajevo was only the excuse.

xilman 2021-07-31 13:52

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;584422]It might be worth remembering that the British penal colony in what is now Australia was only established in 1788, which is after the US was already independent.[/QUOTE]When I flew to Sydney I had to fill in a form, one question was whether I had a criminal record.

I was surprised to see that it was still an entry requirement.

slandrum 2021-07-31 15:54

[QUOTE=xilman;584497]When I flew to Sydney I had to fill in a form, one question was whether I had a criminal record.

I was surprised to see that it was still an entry requirement.[/QUOTE]

:rofl:

LaurV 2021-08-02 10:24

[QUOTE=xilman;584497]I was surprised to see that it was still an entry requirement.[/QUOTE]
Bwaaaaa haa haaaaa haaa :missingteeth:
Fifty points.

Luckily it is afternoon here and my coffee is long gone, otherwise I would be cleaning the keyboard again...


All times are UTC. The time now is 10:53.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.