Why do Nations fail?

[Simon_Jester]

I agree. I do raise one point though: The use (or overuse) of Rome or China I think, is due to them being THE economic and political colossi (colosses?) of their day, and we seek some past mirror of ourselves and they present the most "standout" examples. SO, i guess it's just selection bias.
Though for a boiled down and admittedly simplistic answer: The Gods of the Copybook Headings by Kipling

Even in cases where the "old ways" no longer apply, (native americans meeting europeans for example, or the mayans or greenlanders facing climatic changes) I think a large part of the more spectacular collapses in history can be attributed to people simply taking more out of the systems than their ancestors put in.

If that is generalized to include things like ecological capital and a corruption-free government- it actually works. Also if that is generalized to include other people taking out what your ancestors put in.

The Spanish, for example, basically used the entire native population of what is now Latin America as a strip-mineable, non-renewable resource. Between the plagues that wiped out most of the population, and the enslavement of the remainder to work in Spanish plantations and mines, the native cities fell into ruins and the natives' large cultivated areas reverted to wilderness. A similar process occurred in North America with the English colonists, except that the process was already underway before the first Englishmen built their first houses in Virginia...

Or in a specific small-scale case like Detroit, two or three generations of industrial laborers worked very hard in Detroit to build up the productive heart of American car culture. When economic factors made it unprofitable to keep building there, the jobs were removed and the city, in a real sense, "fell." But this was not of their doing.

[Thanas]

The Spanish, for example, basically used the entire native population of what is now Latin America as a strip-mineable, non-renewable resource. Between the plagues that wiped out most of the population, and the enslavement of the remainder to work in Spanish plantations and mines, the native cities fell into ruins and the natives' large cultivated areas reverted to wilderness. A similar process occurred in North America with the English colonists, except that the process was already underway before the first Englishmen built their first houses in Virginia...

The spanish were actually a lot more friendly to the natives than their Anglo-Saxon counterparts. Heck, most people would struggle today to name the ancient tribes the Anglo-Saxons genocided, whereas at least in the states where Spain ruled the names and some of the traditions got preserved. All in all, the Spanish were much more benevolent and less racist than the Anglo-Saxons.

Don't believe me on the first part: Quick, name the tribes that lived in Maryland before the Brits got there.

[Simon_Jester]

Why does what I say about one thing somehow demand a "yes, but your ancestors were more brutal!"

The English colonists found a land that had been partially depopulated by plagues before they even arrived, then engaged in brutal war to the knife with the natives while strip-mining West Africa for a labor pool, rather than the Americas.

The motivations for the wars in question were variable, with there actually being a certain amount of "it's them or us" in the earliest years, that then colored all later interactions by making the English colonists so biased against the natives that they could not coexist peacefully in any meaningful sense.

[cmdrjones]

I agree. I do raise one point though: The use (or overuse) of Rome or China I think, is due to them being THE economic and political colossi (colosses?) of their day, and we seek some past mirror of ourselves and they present the most "standout" examples. SO, i guess it's just selection bias.
Though for a boiled down and admittedly simplistic answer: The Gods of the Copybook Headings by Kipling

Even in cases where the "old ways" no longer apply, (native americans meeting europeans for example, or the mayans or greenlanders facing climatic changes) I think a large part of the more spectacular collapses in history can be attributed to people simply taking more out of the systems than their ancestors put in.

If that is generalized to include things like ecological capital and a corruption-free government- it actually works. Also if that is generalized to include other people taking out what your ancestors put in.

The Spanish, for example, basically used the entire native population of what is now Latin America as a strip-mineable, non-renewable resource. Between the plagues that wiped out most of the population, and the enslavement of the remainder to work in Spanish plantations and mines, the native cities fell into ruins and the natives' large cultivated areas reverted to wilderness. A similar process occurred in North America with the English colonists, except that the process was already underway before the first Englishmen built their first houses in Virginia...

Or in a specific small-scale case like Detroit, two or three generations of industrial laborers worked very hard in Detroit to build up the productive heart of American car culture. When economic factors made it unprofitable to keep building there, the jobs were removed and the city, in a real sense, "fell." But this was not of their doing.

How were the jobs "removed"? I agree with most of this, and you raise a salient point about others removing what someone else's ancestors put in so to speak... But, that being the case, a failure to adapt can be the proximate cause of a collapsing society. For example, the South in the USA was doomed the moment machine tools started becomeing common place, but there is usually a time lag between when a technology is thought up, invented, tested, perfected, implemented and spread.

I'd say the question of who was more "racist" the English or the spanish is a little wierd. The Spanish were never in serious danger of being thrown back into the sea or starving to death once Tenochtitlan fell. The English colonists almost starved or were nearly wiped out more than once. They didn't turn much of a profit for a long while and weren't supported by successive waves of Conquistadores (or rather, british armies) as the Spanish colonies were.

then again.... Thanas may have a point about spanish nobility....

http://historum.com/american-history/25 ... obles.html

[Thanas]

Why does what I say about one thing somehow demand a "yes, but your ancestors were more brutal!"

Because you used the example of the spanish when a better one would be the English as they were the harsher colonial overlords.

I'd say the question of who was more "racist" the English or the spanish is a little wierd. The Spanish were never in serious danger of being thrown back into the sea or starving to death once Tenochtitlan fell. The English colonists almost starved or were nearly wiped out more than once. They didn't turn much of a profit for a long while and weren't supported by successive waves of Conquistadores (or rather, british armies) as the Spanish colonies were.

The Spanish colonists were hardly in a better position. Heck, even in the 18th century English writers were quite able to admit the Spanish faced much harsher opposition from both people and elements than they did.

[cmdrjones]

Why does what I say about one thing somehow demand a "yes, but your ancestors were more brutal!"

Because you used the example of the spanish when a better one would be the English as they were the harsher colonial overlords.

I'd say the question of who was more "racist" the English or the spanish is a little wierd. The Spanish were never in serious danger of being thrown back into the sea or starving to death once Tenochtitlan fell. The English colonists almost starved or were nearly wiped out more than once. They didn't turn much of a profit for a long while and weren't supported by successive waves of Conquistadores (or rather, british armies) as the Spanish colonies were.

The Spanish colonists were hardly in a better position. Heck, even in the 18th century English writers were quite able to admit the Spanish faced much harsher opposition from both people and elements than they did.

True, but I was making the point that once they had an unassailable geographic foothold, they could comfortably (relatively anyway) expand their holdings. There was no Apache fleet that was going to drive them from their Caribbean bases. Not to mention the advantage that all the Gold and Silver gave them.

[Simon_Jester]

Why does what I say about one thing somehow demand a "yes, but your ancestors were more brutal!"

Because you used the example of the spanish when a better one would be the English as they were the harsher colonial overlords.

The English were, in many cases, not colonial overlords at all- they were eliminationists, locked into a "them or us" conflict with the natives, the origins of which can be traced clear back to events at Jamestown circa 1610.

The end result was that the natives of the Atlantic Seaboard were wiped out culturally about as thoroughly as, oh, the Taino.

But by and large, the English did not use the Indians as labor, except to an extent in the South where plantation agriculture got its start by purchasing war captives from the southern native tribes (later replaced by the African slave trade). And my point here was not to talk about 'worst colonials ever.' That is a red herring which serves only to sidetrack the argument.

My point was to give a more or less randomly chosen example of outsiders coming in and destroying a civilization by strip-mining some resource (ecological, economic, or demographic) necessary for that civilization's survival.

[cmdrjones]

Why does what I say about one thing somehow demand a "yes, but your ancestors were more brutal!"

Because you used the example of the spanish when a better one would be the English as they were the harsher colonial overlords.

The English were, in many cases, not colonial overlords at all- they were eliminationists, locked into a "them or us" conflict with the natives, the origins of which can be traced clear back to events at Jamestown circa 1610.

The end result was that the natives of the Atlantic Seaboard were wiped out culturally about as thoroughly as, oh, the Taino.

But by and large, the English did not use the Indians as labor, except to an extent in the South where plantation agriculture got its start by purchasing war captives from the southern native tribes (later replaced by the African slave trade). And my point here was not to talk about 'worst colonials ever.' That is a red herring which serves only to sidetrack the argument.

My point was to give a more or less randomly chosen example of outsiders coming in and destroying a civilization by strip-mining some resource (ecological, economic, or demographic) necessary for that civilization's survival.

Romans Vs Gauls, Carthaginians, Spaniards, Samnites, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Macedonians, Bithnyans, Thracians, Germans, Britons, etc etc?

[Elheru Aran]

My point was to give a more or less randomly chosen example of outsiders coming in and destroying a civilization by strip-mining some resource (ecological, economic, or demographic) necessary for that civilization's survival.

Romans Vs Gauls, Carthaginians, Spaniards, Samnites, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Macedonians, Bithnyans, Thracians, Germans, Britons, etc etc?

Not quite. The Romans did conquer quite a few ancient civilizations, but once they kicked military ass generally they left them largely alone as long as they acknowledged their new overlords (and formed a favourable trade relationship, etc). There are a few exceptions like the destruction of Carthage, but they didn't exterminate the Carthaginian people, as far as I know. It's not really a comparable situation to the colonial movements of the 17th-19th centuries.

[Simon_Jester]

Romans Vs Gauls, Carthaginians, Spaniards, Samnites, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Macedonians, Bithnyans, Thracians, Germans, Britons, etc etc?

Uh, no.

More like the later Roman empire era in which the empire's ability to respond flexibly and effectively to threats began to decay for various reasons as the underlying wellsprings of Roman strength became... weakened.

[Thanas will probably tear me a new one for saying this, but the Western empire fell somehow; something must have gone wrong.]

Or even more like the barbarians coming in and scrapping a lot of the Roman institutions, with the result that economic well-being and quality of life for Western Europe collapsed.

[cmdrjones]

My point was to give a more or less randomly chosen example of outsiders coming in and destroying a civilization by strip-mining some resource (ecological, economic, or demographic) necessary for that civilization's survival.

Romans Vs Gauls, Carthaginians, Spaniards, Samnites, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Macedonians, Bithnyans, Thracians, Germans, Britons, etc etc?

Not quite. The Romans did conquer quite a few ancient civilizations, but once they kicked military ass generally they left them largely alone as long as they acknowledged their new overlords (and formed a favourable trade relationship, etc). There are a few exceptions like the destruction of Carthage, but they didn't exterminate the Carthaginian people, as far as I know. It's not really a comparable situation to the colonial movements of the 17th-19th centuries.

Can we contact the Carthaginian embassy then?
I'd say you're describing the exact same thing that was said above, how is the Roman empire squeezing Egypt for resources different than the British Squeezing India for the purposes of examining "how civilizations collapse"? If you examine them both from the Egyptian and Indian points of view, I'd hazard they are pretty similar. This of course assumes you count a civilization becoming weak enough to be occupied and bullied for 100s of years as a qualification for "collapse"

[cmdrjones]

Romans Vs Gauls, Carthaginians, Spaniards, Samnites, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Macedonians, Bithnyans, Thracians, Germans, Britons, etc etc?

Uh, no.

More like the later Roman empire era in which the empire's ability to respond flexibly and effectively to threats began to decay for various reasons as the underlying wellsprings of Roman strength became... weakened.

[Thanas will probably tear me a new one for saying this, but the Western empire fell somehow; something must have gone wrong.]

Or even more like the barbarians coming in and scrapping a lot of the Roman institutions, with the result that economic well-being and quality of life for Western Europe collapsed.

That's an entirely different matter. I was talking about the other societies collapse

[Elheru Aran]

Romans Vs Gauls, Carthaginians, Spaniards, Samnites, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Macedonians, Bithnyans, Thracians, Germans, Britons, etc etc?

Not quite. The Romans did conquer quite a few ancient civilizations, but once they kicked military ass generally they left them largely alone as long as they acknowledged their new overlords (and formed a favourable trade relationship, etc). There are a few exceptions like the destruction of Carthage, but they didn't exterminate the Carthaginian people, as far as I know. It's not really a comparable situation to the colonial movements of the 17th-19th centuries.

Can we contact the Carthaginian embassy then?
I'd say you're describing the exact same thing that was said above, how is the Roman empire squeezing Egypt for resources different than the British Squeezing India for the purposes of examining "how civilizations collapse"? If you examine them both from the Egyptian and Indian points of view, I'd hazard they are pretty similar. This of course assumes you count a civilization becoming weak enough to be occupied and bullied for 100s of years as a qualification for "collapse"

Actually... no, again.

The Romans didn't cause Gauls, Britons, etc. to collapse; in many cases, those civilizations actually outlasted the Roman control of their lands. What the Romans did was defeat them militarily, force a political alliance, and then create a (more or less) mutually beneficial economical relationship over time. It was not exploitative in the same way the colonial powers conducted things in their time. Certainly there was an extraction of resources to the benefit of Rome, but they were not establishing massive plantations where slaves were worked to death for the enrichment of a small, rarefied noble class.

And, really. Carthaginian embassy? Don't be absurd.

[Thanas]

Can we contact the Carthaginian embassy then?

Yes you can. It is now called Tripoli, but same thing really. BTW, guess who refounded Carthago? The Romans. And where do we find the last trace of the Carthaginean language? In a Roman town.

I'd say you're describing the exact same thing that was said above, how is the Roman empire squeezing Egypt for resources different than the British Squeezing India for the purposes of examining "how civilizations collapse"? If you examine them both from the Egyptian and Indian points of view, I'd hazard they are pretty similar. This of course assumes you count a civilization becoming weak enough to be occupied and bullied for 100s of years as a qualification for "collapse"

Nope nope nope nope. Nobody who has read into the matter should really believe that.

For starters:
- Rome did not replace the Ruling class, they integrated them. Augustus and other rulers seamlessly were fit into the traditions of the Pharaohs. Heck, if you look at official pharaoh lists, you'll find Roman Emperors there. This BTW is also how Augustus could get away with having Egypt as a separate state within the Empire.
- Augustus and other Romans observed the local customs, sacrificed to local deities and were hailed as rightful descendants of the ancient Pharaohs.
- Rome did not try to destroy the Egyptian middle class or industry. Britain even forbade Indians from having industry, Rome did the exact opposite - they encouraged it whenever they could.
- Rome did not increase tax levels per se. Instead, they used the same system in place as before. What you consider resource extraction was actually taxation that would have went to the Pharaoh anyways. As the Pharaoh was now Roman, it went to Rome. BTW, how do you think Cleopatra got her riches? Simply replace her with Augustus and you got the same result, with the difference that the grain now goes to Roman citizens instead of being sold to finance Egyptian politics.
- Rome did everything it could to encourage trade, industry and wealth of the province, including building the first iteration of a Suez canal. It also financed temples and did a lot to preserve Egyptian civilization.
- Romans were fascinated by Egyptian culture which they regarded as highly advanced. They went to Egypt to study, Egyptian customs, food and religion was highly priced throughout the Empire. This is not the same (well, except maybe for food) with India, or do you suddenly see Queen Victoria converting to Hinduism?

[cmdrjones]

Can we contact the Carthaginian embassy then?

Yes you can. It is now called Tripoli, but same thing really. BTW, guess who refounded Carthago? The Romans. And where do we find the last trace of the Carthaginean language? In a Roman town.

I'd say you're describing the exact same thing that was said above, how is the Roman empire squeezing Egypt for resources different than the British Squeezing India for the purposes of examining "how civilizations collapse"? If you examine them both from the Egyptian and Indian points of view, I'd hazard they are pretty similar. This of course assumes you count a civilization becoming weak enough to be occupied and bullied for 100s of years as a qualification for "collapse"

Nope nope nope nope. Nobody who has read into the matter should really believe that.

For starters:
- Rome did not replace the Ruling class, they integrated them. Augustus and other rulers seamlessly were fit into the traditions of the Pharaohs. Heck, if you look at official pharaoh lists, you'll find Roman Emperors there. This BTW is also how Augustus could get away with having Egypt as a separate state within the Empire.
- Augustus and other Romans observed the local customs, sacrificed to local deities and were hailed as rightful descendants of the ancient Pharaohs.
- Rome did not try to destroy the Egyptian middle class or industry. Britain even forbade Indians from having industry, Rome did the exact opposite - they encouraged it whenever they could.
- Rome did not increase tax levels per se. Instead, they used the same system in place as before. What you consider resource extraction was actually taxation that would have went to the Pharaoh anyways. As the Pharaoh was now Roman, it went to Rome. BTW, how do you think Cleopatra got her riches? Simply replace her with Augustus and you got the same result, with the difference that the grain now goes to Roman citizens instead of being sold to finance Egyptian politics.
- Rome did everything it could to encourage trade, industry and wealth of the province, including building the first iteration of a Suez canal. It also financed temples and did a lot to preserve Egyptian civilization.
- Romans were fascinated by Egyptian culture which they regarded as highly advanced. They went to Egypt to study, Egyptian customs, food and religion was highly priced throughout the Empire. This is not the same (well, except maybe for food) with India, or do you suddenly see Queen Victoria converting to Hinduism?

I'd say that the need to look for last traces of thier language is an admission that Carthaginian civilization is gone. But I get what you are saying about the Romans, they skimmed the cream, they didn't burn everything to the ground.
If a civilization is slowly transformed by an occupier to the point that it scarcely resembles its original independant self, would you count that as a collapse or not?
For example, I Doubt a Gaul plucked from the field across from Caesars legions would recognize his own brethren during the reign of say, Julian the Apostate.

[Thanas]

I'd say that the need to look for last traces of thier language is an admission that Carthaginian civilization is gone.

It is gone because the arabs overran the place and destroyed the last vestiges of the civilization, which was kept alive by Romans.

But I get what you are saying about the Romans, they skimmed the cream, they didn't burn everything to the ground.

Not quite what I was getting at. Think of an alien invasion of the USA which has Obama replaced with some alien doppelganger. Everything is the same, except the president is now an alien and the Army wears new funny hats. And that would be even stranger than what happened to Egypt.

If a civilization is slowly transformed by an occupier to the point that it scarcely resembles its original independant self, would you count that as a collapse or not?

Np.

For example, I Doubt a Gaul plucked from the field across from Caesars legions would recognize his own brethren during the reign of say, Julian the Apostate.

I think he would probably do a better job of that than a British citizen from today would be able to recognize his own from the 1600s.

[cmdrjones]

I'd say that the need to look for last traces of thier language is an admission that Carthaginian civilization is gone.

It is gone because the arabs overran the place and destroyed the last vestiges of the civilization, which was kept alive by Romans.

But I get what you are saying about the Romans, they skimmed the cream, they didn't burn everything to the ground.

Not quite what I was getting at. Think of an alien invasion of the USA which has Obama replaced with some alien doppelganger. Everything is the same, except the president is now an alien and the Army wears new funny hats. And that would be even stranger than what happened to Egypt.

If a civilization is slowly transformed by an occupier to the point that it scarcely resembles its original independant self, would you count that as a collapse or not?

Np.

For example, I Doubt a Gaul plucked from the field across from Caesars legions would recognize his own brethren during the reign of say, Julian the Apostate.

I think he would probably do a better job of that than a British citizen from today would be able to recognize his own from the 1600s.

I dunno if holding up British civilization today as compared to England of the 1600s is an example of a non-collapse. The 1600's Englishman would likely have a heart attack over Londonistan, the German royal family, Scots/Welsh/N. Irish as "equals," colonists running things etc etc.
Of course, I think you can have a cultural collapse without an economic one.
That may be where we differ.
Your example of The arabs destroying the last vestiges of Carthage is well taken, but without the initial Roman sack & burn of Carthage I'd speculate that the Muslims would never have gotten that far... but that involves couterfactuals, which are always messy.

[Thanas]

I dunno if holding up British civilization today as compared to England of the 1600s is an example of a non-collapse. The 1600's Englishman would likely have a heart attack over Londonistan, the German royal family, Scots/Welsh/N. Irish as "equals," colonists running things etc etc.
Of course, I think you can have a cultural collapse without an economic one.

So you view evolution as collapse?

Your example of The arabs destroying the last vestiges of Carthage is well taken, but without the initial Roman sack & burn of Carthage I'd speculate that the Muslims would never have gotten that far... but that involves couterfactuals, which are always messy.

Pffft...that is so far beyond insane....you really don't know a lot about Carthage or the energy of the Arab conquest, do you?

[mr friendly guy]

Thanas is most probably going to rip me a new one, but I am going to ask.

Didn't the Arabs "get that far" because of weakening of the Byzantine / Eastern Roman Empire and the various Persian empires because they kept fighting each other? Yeah I know the Byzantines managed to reversed some of their losses, but I thought the general trend is that the Arabs got a great break because of that fighting between the two rivals.

Given that the Eastern Roman Empire couldn't stop the Arabs in real life, we would have to ask whether a Carthage that wasn't destroyed by Rome be able to stand up to such a force? I would have thought not, unless we declare they not only recover from losing the Punic wars but become more powerful than the Byzantines around the time the Arabs make their move.

[cmdrjones]

I dunno if holding up British civilization today as compared to England of the 1600s is an example of a non-collapse. The 1600's Englishman would likely have a heart attack over Londonistan, the German royal family, Scots/Welsh/N. Irish as "equals," colonists running things etc etc.
Of course, I think you can have a cultural collapse without an economic one.

So you view evolution as collapse?

Your example of The arabs destroying the last vestiges of Carthage is well taken, but without the initial Roman sack & burn of Carthage I'd speculate that the Muslims would never have gotten that far... but that involves couterfactuals, which are always messy.

Pffft...that is so far beyond insane....you really don't know a lot about Carthage or the energy of the Arab conquest, do you?

How is a scientific theory involving genetics predict the cultural collapse of a civilzation?

I haven't read any primary documents on carthage, no. (I'd suspect because much of what they had was destroyed when the city was leveled) But, from what i've read on the Arab conquests, Carthage and Egypt each held out for a while even without much (if any) aid from Byzantium... which of course had it's own problems stemming from the plagues and upheavals of the previous century. There were climatic disruptions not long before the Arab conquests began in earnest as well.

[cmdrjones]

Stupid Editing....

Anyway I had more but it got eaten.
the .05 version:

Cultural Collapse is different from (cultural) evolution because the first is thrust upon a nation, the latter can be chosen.
For example: Africans were atomized and enslaved and were part of a great economic boom in the new world, though to argue against a cultural collapse because they ended up materially 'better off' would be a craptastic argument at best. The same goes for native americans. nazi germany and imperial japan went through (minor) cultural collapse, but we generally view those as 'good' for civilization.

As for the Muslim conquest, Both egypt AND carthage held out for quite a while, and as Mr Friendly Guy states, there was quite a bit of upheaval in the Byzantine world, not only due to fighting with the Persians, but there were plagues and climatic changes in the century leading up to the Arab conquest as well.

An intact Carthage with a fleet and weaponry of the day would rip a Muslim force advancing across N africa a new one for major reasons: #1 they have a fleet, the Arabs largely didn't until some time after seizing Egypt and making their bid for Constantinople, which failed spectacularly against Leo III. The Carthaginian fleet could have easliy harassed any force seeking to move west along the N. African coast #2 the berbers would have little reason to switch sides against thier traditional patron/overlord/frenemy what have you. The alien christian Byzantines were another matter. Muslim Arabs without their ability to maneuver in the deserts unopposed and choose the circumstances of battle AND at the end of their supply lines are vulnerable.... one serious loss and they are done for.
The Muslims get sent packing.

[Thanas]

Thanas is most probably going to rip me a new one, but I am going to ask.

Didn't the Arabs "get that far" because of weakening of the Byzantine / Eastern Roman Empire and the various Persian empires because they kept fighting each other? Yeah I know the Byzantines managed to reversed some of their losses, but I thought the general trend is that the Arabs got a great break because of that fighting between the two rivals.

Indeed, without the two superpowers destroying each other in close to a century of brutal fighting which destroyed the entire middle east the arabs probably don't even measure up that much. We know this because saracens and other arab tribes had united before (albeit on a smaller degree) and were already significant players, but they never really dared to challenge the greater powers openly. And with good reason, considering what happened the last time they did.

Given that the Eastern Roman Empire couldn't stop the Arabs in real life, we would have to ask whether a Carthage that wasn't destroyed by Rome be able to stand up to such a force? I would have thought not, unless we declare they not only recover from losing the Punic wars but become more powerful than the Byzantines around the time the Arabs make their move.

Carthage after the Punic War and the subsequent rebellions was no different than any other african state. In fact, Numidia certainly became much more powerful than Carthage then. And Carthage was unable to deal with the kind of challenge the arabs presented - light, raiding cavalry mostly - as evidenced by Numidia.

So yes. Unless you somehow magick them back to Power, they will probably fare even worse than they did under Roman rule.

But, from what i've read on the Arab conquests, Carthage and Egypt each held out for a while even without much (if any) aid from Byzantium... which of course had it's own problems stemming from the plagues and upheavals of the previous century. There were climatic disruptions not long before the Arab conquests began in earnest as well.

None of that should be used to support a claim for the power of Carthage, as all of that is due to the centuries-old Roman investment in the area and the defensive structure that resulted from it.

An intact Carthage with a fleet and weaponry of the day would rip a Muslim force advancing across N africa a new one for major reasons: #1 they have a fleet, the Arabs largely didn't until some time after seizing Egypt and making their bid for Constantinople, which failed spectacularly against Leo III.

It only failed because of Greek Fire, something Carthage had no access too, and of the walls of Constantinople, which also dwarf anything Carthage has ever had. And the field army, which also dwars what Carthage had.

BTW, there was a fleet supporting Carthage. Which is why it held out for so long. I see no reason to assume the end result will be any different though when Roman Carthage was much larger than old Carthage anyway.

The Carthaginian fleet could have easliy harassed any force seeking to move west along the N. African coast

No, mainly due to the wind and weather conditions. And because it is really hard to keep a fleet in the field in that time period. The Byzantines did the best anybody could have done with their fleet, I doubt Carthage would even match that.

#2 the berbers would have little reason to switch sides against thier traditional patron/overlord/frenemy what have you. The alien christian Byzantines were another matter.

No. Just...No. The berber tribes at that point had centuries of alliances, marriages and treaties with the East Romans (what you call Byzantines). Christianity did not change that, for those bonds persisted long before and long after Christianity had arrived. Heck, several Emperors had berber ties.

The berbers actually supported the Byzantines as well, but the arabs were just better. That is all there is to it.

BTW, one of the first things the Berber tribes (and the kingdom of Numidia did) was to pillage Carthaginean lands once Rome had destroyed Hannibal's army. Heck, Numidia even switched over to Rome before that. You really overstate the ties between Carthage and the berbers. Did you now what caused the most damage to the Carthaginean state? The numidians waging decades of war against them after the second punic war.

Muslim Arabs without their ability to maneuver in the deserts unopposed and choose the circumstances of battle AND at the end of their supply lines are vulnerable.... one serious loss and they are done for.

So you think these tactics were unknown to the Byzantines, what with their eight centuries of desert warfare experience? Really?

In fact, Byzantine grand strategy (if such a thing ever existed) depends on area denial, ambushes and scorched earth tactics. They were masters at all three. And they still could not stop the arabs.

Oh and you should read up on the Muslim conquest of Carthage. You will find that the Byzantines used every tactic you mention. They even had largescale attacks upon the Arabs where forces from Constantinople would sail to Africa and surprise the arabs. They had Berber tribes harassing the arabs for decades.

The Muslims get sent packing.

Nope, they take Carthage, just like they did in history. In fact, this will even be worse for the western world than it was in history, because there is no chance that Carthage alone will hold on for as long as actual carthage did. For once, there are no armies to be sent from Europe to help them in this scenario.

[Ziggy Stardust]

We know this because saracens and other arab tribes had united before (albeit on a smaller degree) and were already significant players, but they never really dared to challenge the greater powers openly. And with good reason, considering what happened the last time they did.

Out of curiosity, since this is unfortunately a field I know very little about despite it fascinating me, when you say "what happened the last time" are you referring to a specific event or war, or rather just the general trend of Roman/East Roman dominance of the region?

[Thanas]

We know this because saracens and other arab tribes had united before (albeit on a smaller degree) and were already significant players, but they never really dared to challenge the greater powers openly. And with good reason, considering what happened the last time they did.

Out of curiosity, since this is unfortunately a field I know very little about despite it fascinating me, when you say "what happened the last time" are you referring to a specific event or war, or rather just the general trend of Roman/East Roman dominance of the region?

Both.

First of all, desert warfare is most unforgiving to any combatant. While the Romans and Sassanids withstood numerous sacks of their respective capital and important cities, this is not true for desert people. They had neither the population surplus, migration potential or climate to survive heavy sacks. There were several attempts by Arab or desert rulers (the distinction is a bit hard to make out, at least for me) to conquer territory. Most well-known of course is Zenobia, who only got by with the power vacuum that existed when the Romans and Persians both lost their entire armies/command structure. Once Rome recovered and started knocking on the door and sacked Palmyra, Palmyra was done as a significant player in the region.

So that is the western event I am referring to - and the eastern event happened about 50 years later. Look at this map. You will see the Ghassanids and the Lakhmids bordering the Roman and Sassanid Empire. The Ghassanids were arabs who had converted to christianity and were client states. But let's disregard them.

The Lakhmids were client states of the Sassanid Empire. How they became that is very telling. Early in the 300s, a Lakhmid king dreamt of a unified Arabia (no, Mohammed was far from being the first one who tried that) and conquered most of the Arab cities. He then decided that he wanted to become the dominant regional power and raided the coast of the Sassanid Empire, even plundering some sacred sites. The Sassanids at that point had taken heavy losses in the war against the tetrarchy and were still reeling from that, so the Lakhmids probably thought they could exploit this. However, the Sassanid response was pretty swift - They assembled an army (and not even a particularly large one for Sassanid standards, 60k troops at most) and marched towards the Lakhmid capital. When the Lakhmids realized that the Sassanid logistics were able to supply that army, they went "oh crap" and appealed to the Romans for help. The Roman Emperor Constantius II promised them help, so the Lakhmids fought on. Presumably Constantius II then took a look at the map, realized he would actually have to cross the whole of the Sassanid Empire to do that and then decided that other borders were a better investment of resources.

Whatever the reason, Roman help did not arrive. The Lakhmid army was easily defeated, their capital sacked. Shapur II then reacted with a special kind of brutality - which earned him the nickname Zol 'Aktāf in arabic (piercer of the shoulders). He had spears thrust through the shoulders of the captives and then had the ropes by which the slaves were chained together pulled through those holes. A real swell guy, that Shapur. The deposed leader fled to Rome and died in Roman territory. The next hundred years the Lakhmids were clients of the Sassanids, until the Sassanids decided to just annex the whole kingdom in the early 7th century, which they did with little resistance to speak of.

So yeah, you might say the attempts at unifying the Arab tribes did not go that well until the Sassanids and Romans had lost their ability to swiftly power project mass forces over long distances.

[cmdrjones]

I concede on the Carthage side conversation. I really only studied the campaigns of Belisarius and Narses back in the day, so Numidia is pretty much a blank. I knew they existed, but assumed they were vassals/rivals of Carthage to the extent that the Samnites were for Rome.
Now, My other contention I stand by, and that is that an Independent Carthage would probably do better due to fighting for their own city on their own soil instead of being dependent on a distant Constantinople that had it's own problems fending off Arab attacks around the same time.

Back to the mains topic:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sens ... on-bubble/