However, because it was a pit close to a fortress, there was a situation of isolation. It was not a trench that played two roles as a supply channel and a fortress as it is now. In addition, trenches work only when current long-range weapons like guns begin in earnest. In the past, it worked to hide and attack in a country like our country or fortress, where arrows were the main focus. Trench does not work very well in the war against Goguryeo. If a rare master such as Scipio or Caesar appears and uses ghostly tactics, Goguryeo will win under the military system. In addition, Rome values rotation. The attack behind ambush or surprise attack was considered cowardly. Even when Hannibal attacked Rome, Hannibal used the topography to ambush and surprise attacks, but the Romans do not recognize it as defeat. I think I've only been tricked. In this state, you will be subjected to ghostly tactics by the master of strategic tactics, Gwanggaeto the Great. There was a question raised by Greenyds. "This is the first time I've heard of Goguryeo tank bottles. In fact, chariot was only used before the existence of a stirrup. Therefore, I know that the existence of tanks has disappeared since the Warring States period in China. This is because the combat power is lower than that of the cavalry with the back. I think Goguryeo probably fought using dog cavalry and economic soldiers efficiently. Although there is no record, it is common sense of the military law to operate soldiers, but you did not mention it, but instead mentioned tanks. I don't know if it's because I'm foolish, but I'd appreciate it if you could answer this. Then..." First, I will talk about Goguryeo tank soldiers. General there (the commander of the tank corps) General there is an official position in Goguryeo. As you can see from the expression, it is a position that manages all the departments consisting of horse carts. As can be seen from the name of this position, the tram was used until then. If you look at the Goguryeo Ancient Tombs mural matrix, there are numerous bottles. Through the matrix, I could learn a lot about Goguryeo's weapons and gloves. I also got the most definite information about Goguryeo's Iron Armor from there. Trams also appear in the matrix. A soldier is riding in an enclosed cart pulled by a horse. Records show that tanks were also used during the Su-Dang War. Of course, it's a Chinese record. The tram continued to decline because it was difficult to change direction and handle compared to cavalry, but the opponent's main focus was infantry, so the tram with excellent breakthrough power was still used. In particular, Goguryeo seems to have made good use of the tram. As some of you may know, Goguryeo is the country of carts. The two-wheel cart, which appears in the murals of Goguryeo tombs, was the axis of Goguryeo's military and economy. Goguryeo was able to grow into a great empire because of the revitalization of commerce and distribution through carts as well as agriculture. And overall, tanks are less capable of fighting than cavalry. As mentioned above, mobility and agility are poor. In a way, it can be said that the killing power is also low. However, chariot pulled by two to four horses has much better breakthrough power than cavalry in a straight dash. And with the development of the cart itself (such as making wheels large and mounting weapons), its ability is much better. In addition, compared to cavalry who are relatively weak in archery, tank soldiers have superior abilities for archery soldiers. When attacking dense infantry, it will work better if you pierce it with a tank unit and attack it. The weakness of tanks is that they are significantly less responsive to situations, so their capabilities change depending on the longevity they use. If you use it carefully, it will be a solution to solve the lull. You said there was no record of Gyeonggi-do disease in Goguryeo, but if you look at the matrix mentioned above, there is Gyeonggi-do disease. Iron armor cavalry is one of Goguryeo's numerous cavalry. Gyeonggi-do soldiers would have been similar to or more than ironclad soldiers in Goguryeo. It goes without saying the importance of cavalry in ancient battles, but troublesomely, gloves and speed were inversely proportional. The lighter the gloves, the faster the cavalry's speed, and the thicker the gloves, the lower the speed. So I put the past generals in a dilemma. The most representative cavalry who abandoned gloves and chose speed is the Mongolian cavalry, and the most representative cavalry who abandoned speed and chose gloves is the aftershocks Geum Dynasty cavalry. It is said that the cavalry of the Geum Dynasty wore three layers of gloves. Goguryeo cavalry is about halfway between Mongolia and gold. Compared to Mongolian cavalry, they are wearing gloves that cover the whole body, but they are not three layers like Geum Dynasty. In addition, the gloves were sticky, so they were quick to move, lighter than the cardboard, and had better gloves ability due to shock absorption. For your information, in Rome, cardboard was used more often. In terms of cavalry dealing with archers, choosing between gloves and speed was an important matter of life, as well as winning or losing the war. In fact, ancient bows and arrows were not very developed. This is especially true in places like Rome, where archery soldiers were not used well. The range of an arrow is up to hundreds of meters at most, but just because it reaches it, the probability of being stuck in the goal is significantly low. The reason why Korea's bow is excellent is not just a range, but because it is more likely to hit the target from a long distance. The actual range of the bow with killing power is about 50m. Countries like Rome, where bows are not developed, are expected to be around 30m. Even if you shoot an arrow as the opponent's cavalry rush in, the archer actually doesn't have a chance to shoot an arrow if the opponent enters within the de facto range of 30m. No matter how slow the cavalry is, it will be about 50km per hour. Then, about 50m will break through in 4 seconds. So, when a cavalry enters within the de facto range, the archer quickly reorganizes the camp and falls into the background or shoots the last shot. As with most tactics, it was to launch a long-distance attack until the opponent's lead rushed, and quickly fall into the back of cavalry or infantry when the enemy approached. So there are many opportunities for archers, but there are two chances if they risk their lives. However, for a manually shooting archer, the difference between 3 seconds and 3.6 seconds is not so big (when viewed as 50km per hour for armed armored archers and 60km per hour for game soldiers). That's why Gungbyeong sometimes set up a stop line in front of the enemy troops rushing to get a chance to die. Obstacles such as trees and stones. It's feasible enough for an army like the Roman army who is good at joining forces. We'll delay the enemy's charge and get another chance at archery. In this case, it would be advantageous to have an ironclad with a thicker armament than a sports soldier. It doesn't mean that economic diseases are useless. In a way, sports soldiers may have had better abilities than ironclad soldiers. You can see a horse running on the mural hunting island of Goguryeo tombs and shooting a bow at the prey behind you. It is said to be very difficult technology and rare in the world. The soldiers of Goguryeo cavalry, who always carry a bow and use the bow as their main weapon, may be a senior of Mongolia. And it's my mistake that I didn't mention the sports disease. Sports soldiers are at least 10 kilometers per hour faster than ironclad soldiers. Using this mobility and agility, it is thought to be very useful for bypass siege transition. And there's something I forgot about, and some said that after Scipio, Rome also opened its eyes to tactics using cavalry and that there was a superior cavalry imported from Numidia and Gallia. However, when Roman cavalry and Goguryeo cavalry collide (Rome always placed cavalry on the side and it depends on the situation in the East, but placing cavalry on the side is the basic type.) The reason Goguryeo cavalry has no choice but to win is because of the light. In the West, castles became common around the 8th century and were used by ordinary soldiers, but before that, there were only a few imported from the East, so they used to be high-ranking official. So the soldiers sitting on the horses were restricted from their behavior and could not attack as strong as Goguryeo cavalry. As mentioned above, Roman cavalry is only an auxiliary force that surrounds the formation of the four planes and attacks from the side and behind to destroy the formation. There was a question raised by jjh1081327. - This is what I think. The person who asked this question is in his heyday. - Then, both heroes, Skipio and Caesar, will be included. In the heyday of Rome, there was never Scipio and Caesar. In general, the heyday of Rome refers to about 200 years from 27 BC to 180 AD in the early days of Roman enactment. But both Scipio and Caesar are Republican Roman. They are all great heroes and strategists, but unfortunately, they were absent in Rome's heyday. In particular, 스키skipio (usually famous Skipio) and Caesar cannot exist at the same time because there is a difference of about 200 years in time. I'm adding someone's content. Rome faced Paxromana in its heyday, and there were more slaves than the people, which made a relatively big difference or weakened army, while Goguryeo used prisoners of the conquest as troops. Therefore, Goguryeo could beat Rome. This is a question from mint8207. I think it's a really ridiculous argument. I can only say that this is a really ridiculous argument.If you ask military experts or historians to think about this, they will naturally answer that it's a ridiculous comparison. What the Roman Empire has been talked about by many people to this day is that it was the only superpower in human history. We often talk a lot about the fall of the Roman Empire, but that's because Rome has been dealt with from a Christian-Jewish perspective.
Rather than paying attention to the fall of Rome, you can see the greatness of the Roman Empire by thinking about how Rome has lasted for over 2,000 years.(Normally, few countries have exceeded 500 years.) Especially in the case of an empire that occupied a vast territory) Then let's talk about the Roman legion. Goguryeo is dominant in terms of troops? This is really ridiculous. Comparing the population, how many people do you think Goguryeo had at the time? In the case of the East, there is no accurate record. However, throughout the history books, many people may be well aware that 300,000 troops can be mobilized as a nationwide island in Goguryeo's history. What about Rome? In fact, Rome's military power becomes nominal as it declines, but this is the result of its collapse. Goguryeo also has its heyday (King Gwanggaeto-King Jangsu), so Rome should also take its heyday as an example. For reference, Rome's heyday seems to be more than 100 times longer than Goguryeo. The Roman Empire's military power has been at its highest level ever since the Italian Peninsula. Rome had about 200,000 standing army troops. This is, of course, a story of the time of enactment. In fact, Rome has little history of fighting for the honor of the state. That's why I tried to keep my troops to a minimum. Rome during the Empire alone has more than 5 million citizens. And Rome didn't traditionally hire mercenaries, but if you recruit mercenaries from Orient, you'll also have enough funds for this. Rome is far superior in terms of economic power. It's clear if you just list objective things. It is clear that Rome had an unparalleled advantage over Goguryeo in these three areas, which are important in war, population, and economic power. And another one. The Roman army also had an upper hand in strategy, tactics, and technology. I wonder if Emperor Trajan knows that he crossed the Donau River, which is more than 1km wide, when he traveled to Dhakia (now Romania). To that extent, Rome's technology was so powerful. You wouldn't have to say how advantageous this technology is in terms of strategy, tactics, and weapons in war, right? You'll know well if you watch Julius Caesar's "Gallia Expedition". Goguryeo was able to withstand the Chinese forces for a long time in numerous castles. Goguryeo always defended in the castle and took the method of dispatching cavalry to defeat them when they had an advantageous opportunity. But if this is the Roman army, it doesn't work. Once the Roman army engaged in an siege, they dug trenches around the castle and set up measures. And attack using various fortresses. Can Goguryeo's castle remain in this Roman attack? Another... Strategy and tactics. No matter how good Goguryeo's Gwanggaeto's tactics are... That's just... It's a hypothesis. It's not a hypothesis, but a legend. Then, why was the strategy not followed by future generations and eventually Goguryeo lost to the Tang Dynasty? That's literally because it's just a legend, and even if it's true, it's only valid for one king. Even if you have a genius who can use strategies and tactics, it's nothing more than a useless adaptation if you can't use it generally other than him. However, the Roman army constantly developed strategies and tactics and edified them. This is very important. In other words, a Roman general could know and use all the basic strategies and tactics that Roman troops could use, even if he was not a military genius such as Scipio Afranus, Julius Caesar, or Pompeii. You can see how the fight between one extraordinary genius and ten competent generals ends by looking at the Second Punic War, when Hannibal, a genius general, invaded Rome. The Roman army was proficient in the siege annihilation operation that Scipio Afreecaus inherited and developed Hannibal's tactics. The main effect of this operation is not only in the cavalry dominance. Isolation and neutralization of the enemy's main forces are the key to this operation. So this tactic of the Roman army is also based on tactical teachers in military schools in each country today. You don't need a cavalry. It is clear that cavalry is important in this operation, but Julius Caesar overcame the inferiority of cavalry by using heavy armored infantry, the main power of the Roman army, in the Parsalus rotation (a showdown between Pompeo and Caesar). Q. Rome is strong only in rotation? That's right. The Roman army was strong in the rotation of camps on the plains. This means that Roman generals fought in a textbookized operation. I used it as I learned. And when this rotation took place, 100 was a victory for the Roman army. Then, Goguryeo doesn't have to make a turn? This isn't right. That's impossible to say in this hypothesis. If you look at the Roman army's struggle, it's about the rebels. Guerrilla battles by rebels do not have to win or lose. The rebels used to hide and attack the Roman army because it became a battle at the base. However, it could cause great damage to the Roman army, but it could not destroy it. Although he could bully the Roman army in his area, there was no opponent who could win against Rome in Rome's sphere of influence. It would be impossible without a large-scale battle to defeat Rome, right? And when you fight this war, the Roman army also prevails in this battle. It is noteworthy that the Roman legion soldiers are volunteers composed of Roman citizenship holders. Rome had a conscription system until Marius' military reform. This was one of the important driving forces behind winning the Punic War. However, as you know well, inflation after the Punic War has shaken the economic foundation of the common people and deteriorated the quality of the Roman army. Marius transformed this into a support system and succeeded, and if you look at the Roman military system before this system, you can divide the residential areas of Roman citizenship holders and... We're going to draw the earth to select conscripts. And the citizenship owners of the selected district will serve in the military for a year. The military service is evenly operated by adjusting appropriately so that the same Earth is not picked several times. The civic soldiers selected in this way were socially leading forces, so they were very proud. It was a justification to protect itself for the safety of the country. And these Western civil soldiers had 10:1 combat power compared to Eastern troops. It was incomparable to the military power of Orient, where civilians who perform voluntary military service and mercenaries were conscripted by the order of the absolute king. This was evident through Alexander the Great's expedition or through the Eastern expeditions of generals such as Luculus and Pompeii of the Roman army. Later Marius' military reform turned him into a supporter, but the Roman army's combat power improved. The Roman army became even more powerful as the Germanic, Galians, Numidian cavalry, Orient-Cretan archers became members of the Roman army, which was not possible before. If you fight against this Roman army... Goguryeo soldiers are conscripted soldiers. And like all soldiers in the East, these are people who usually farm and then convene in the event of a war. Of course, Rome was also like that before the military reform. But they were civic soldiers, and combat power was the same as I said earlier. And even if he was called up, he was put in after months of military training. There is nothing to say after changing to a professional system. The training of the Roman army, as it was known, was like a practice. And the training of the Roman army was the force that created the powerful invincible Roman army. I hope you don't see it from our central values and recognize it properly. Ask these questions to historians and military experts. ㅉ 로마 You don't seem to know much about the Roman army, but read "The Roman Story". Don't discuss the Roman army because you're obsessed with Christian-centered values... (Roman army is a multinational army.) May you not think of the Roman army after watching a Hollywood movie...) And this is a letter I sent to mint8207. You must have read some Roman stories. Of course, I've read that. Then have you read a book about Goguryeo? And what you're saying is not even a proper reading of the Roman story, but it's full of loopholes. What the Roman Empire is still talked about by many today is that it was the only superpower in human history. We often talk a lot about the fall of the Roman Empire, but that's because Rome has been dealt with from a Christian-Jewish perspective. Rather than paying attention to the fall of Rome, you can see the greatness of the Roman Empire by thinking about how Rome has lasted for over 2,000 years.(Normally, few countries have exceeded 500 years.) Especially in the case of empires that occupied vast territories) this part first. I wish you had fallen into a ridiculous Roman-centered sadism. Rome's true history is over a thousand years, including the legendary era, which was made by the Romans and is more likely to be fictional. If East Rome, called the Byzantine Empire, continues to Roman history, it will only be 2,000 years old. Of course, I really admit that. However, in parentheses, few countries are generally over 500 years old. My my... In general, there are few countries in our history that haven't exceeded 500 years. And if you look at the Western view of the country when Goryeo collapsed and Joseon stood, you can never say that the country collapsed and the vein was cut off. Of course, that doesn't mean I'm forcing the two countries to continue their ages. Goguryeo is dominant in terms of troops? This is really ridiculous. Comparing the population, how many people do you think Goguryeo had at the time? In the case of the East, there is no accurate record. However, throughout the history books, many people may be well aware that 300,000 troops can be mobilized as a nationwide island in Goguryeo's history. What about Rome?
In fact, Rome's military power becomes nominal as it declines, but this is the result of its collapse. Goguryeo also has its heyday (King Gwanggaeto-King Jangsu), so Rome should also take its heyday as an example. For reference, Rome's heyday seems to be more than 100 times longer than Goguryeo. The Roman Empire's military power has been at its highest level ever since the Italian Peninsula. Rome had about 200,000 standing army troops. This is, of course, a story of the time of enactment. In fact, Rome has little history of fighting for the honor of the state. That's why I tried to keep my troops to a minimum. Rome during the Empire alone has more than 5 million citizens. 300,000 mobilization troops of Goguryeo are enough. But Rome is different. Rome is really big. Goguryeo was also considerable in terms of land area, but the situation is completely different from Rome. It is no exaggeration to say that Rome is actually a country without wires. After the efforts of Caesar and his successor, the Donau River Rhine was clearly used as a frontline for the Germans, but the Germans also did not regard Rome's borders as an absolute boundary, and they often crossed borders at the time of enactment. The Germanic people penetrated deeply into Roman society. Therefore, the great movement of the Germanic people was also able to cross the border of Rome. Let's talk about our heyday, put that aside. Rome completed the great empire through constant conquest. If you look at the map of Rome in the textbook, it's enormous. But it says it's Rome's sphere of influence. It's not really the border of the Roman Empire. You know what I mean when you read the story of the Romans. In fact, under the strong influence of Rome, it was not truly Rome, even if it was integrated into one Rome or no different. Rome is a country that combines several other forces. That means there is always a threat to the internal enemy. (On the other hand, Goguryeo, a national state, had fewer internal threats. All I had to do was pay attention to the threat of the front line) So no matter how much Roman standing army you mentioned, it spreads throughout Rome. This means that there is a limited number of troops that can be gathered on one front. In fact, how many battles have large-scale military forces faced in Roman history, as Goguryeo and China did? If you think it's a lot, please let me know. >And Rome didn't traditionally hire mercenaries, but if you recruit mercenaries from Orient, you'll have enough money for this. Rome is far superior in terms of economic power. It's ridiculous that Rome traditionally didn't hire mercenaries. Please read the Roman story book again. It was in numerous castles that Goguryeo was able to withstand the Chinese forces for a long time. Goguryeo always defended in the castle and took the method of dispatching cavalry to defeat them when they had an advantageous opportunity. But if this is the Roman army, it doesn't work. Once the Roman army engaged in an siege, they dug trenches around the castle and set up measures. And attack using various fortresses. Can Goguryeo's castle remain in this Roman attack? You can feel here that your argument is full of contradictions. It is true that Goguryeo confronted tactics with Mercury due to China. But if Rome brings a few soldiers and attacks them with a siege flag, will Goguryeo troops hide inside the castle and watch the castle collapse? It's really a lie. And Roman architecture is really excellent, but China and Goguryeo have been using similar fortresses for a long time, and you can tell by looking at the Three Kingdoms without needing historical books. And you mentioned the superiority of technology, but in the East, before gunpowder was invented, sulfur and salt could be used to create gunpowder-like effects. And the development of various weapons with clear win-win relationships in the East would have been threatening to the Roman army, which is monotonous. >Why couldn't the strategy follow later generations and Goguryeo eventually lost to the Tang Dynasty? That's literally because it's just a legend, and even if it's true, it's only valid for one king. Even if you have a genius who can use strategies and tactics, it's nothing more than a useless adaptation if you can't use it generally other than him. However, the Roman army constantly developed strategies and tactics and edified them. This is very important. In other words, a Roman general could know and use all the basic strategies and tactics that Roman troops could use, even if he was not a military genius such as Scipio Afranus, Julius Caesar, or Pompeii. I could see that he was really immersed in the four majorities of Roman worship. Reading Roman stories hard, it seems that you are indifferent to Eastern history. He said that Rome's fall was not because Rome was weak, but because of the collapse within Rome. My my. So, the fall of Goguryeo was because Goguryeo was united, but its power was so weak. Have you ever heard of the fall of Pyongyang? Pyongyang Castle was bigger and stronger than any other castle at the time. Not only Jangan Province in China, but also anywhere in Rome that you like. Pyongyang Castle opened with the surrender of his son after the death of Yeon Gaesomun. In the meantime, unfavorable factors such as power struggle within the leadership, panic, and attack by Silla, the background. Of course, I have nothing to say if this is a skill. I kind of went off topic. There are soldiers in the East. The military law talks about managing the country, dealing with talent, distributing goods, intelligence, etc., leading the entire army as a commander-in-chief, as well as trivial tactics as a commander-in-chief. And there are a lot of types of such laws, including the famous grandchildren's disease, and their contents and methods are very diverse. It's no match for the tactical textbook of Roman military schools. Goguryeo's longevity is not a strong boat like a beauty. >Roman army was fluent in the siege annihilation operation developed by Scipio Afreecaus after inheriting Hannibal's tactics. The main effect of this operation is not only in the cavalry dominance. Isolation and neutralization of the enemy's main forces are the key to this operation. So this tactic of the Roman army is also based on tactical teachers in military schools in each country today. You don't need a cavalry. It is clear that cavalry is important in this operation, but Julius Caesar overcame the inferiority of cavalry by using heavy armored infantry, the main power of the Roman army, in the Parsalus rotation (a showdown between Pompeo and Caesar). He takes over Hannibal's cavalry-led tactics and uses siege annihilation tactics freely. And the main effect of this operation is not only in the cavalry dominance. It depends on how you use cavalry. Hehe and Caesar and Pompeii's rotation of Parsalus are cited as examples, but doesn't this contradict what you said above? First of all, Caesar's tactics are described in detail in Roman stories, so you know, is that a traditional Roman tactic? My gosh. Who can use such tactics without Caesar? This is nothing more than the tactic you mentioned above, and how can this be national competitiveness? The example of Caesar contradicts what you said and never shows the greatness of the Roman army, as you say. >That's right. The Roman army was strong in the rotation of camps on the plains. This means that Roman generals fought in a textbookized operation. I used it as I learned. And when this rotation took place, 100 was a victory for the Roman army. It was seen in my article that Goguryeo troops centered on cavalry dominate over Roman troops centered on infantry. As you said above, it is natural that the siege island extinction operation will not work for Goguryeo cavalry. Just because the Romans won 100 against other weak countries around them, the childishness of you who think 100 wins 100 against Goguryeo forces is really brilliant. >If the Goguryeo archipelago wants to defeat Rome, it will be impossible without a large-scale battle, right? And in the event of this war, Roman troops dominate in this battle, as mentioned above, Goguryeo is ahead of the troops that can be mobilized at the same time. Large-scale battles are rather disadvantageous to Roman forces. >The civic soldiers selected in this way were socially leading forces, so they were very proud. It was a justification to protect itself for the safety of the country. And these Western civil soldiers had 10:1 combat power compared to Eastern troops. It was incomparable to the military power of Orient, where civilians who perform voluntary military service and mercenaries were conscripted by the order of the absolute king. This was evident through Alexander the Great's expedition or through the Eastern expeditions of generals such as Luculus and Pompeii of the Roman army. The fighting power of the Roman army is recognized by the world, the honor and patriotism of the Roman army are recognized by the world, and there is no room for objection. Haha. But the 10:1 combat power mentioned above is probably what Shionano Nanami mentioned when comparing the combat power of Caesar's legion with the Gallic army in the Roman story. The Caesar Corps, especially the 10th Corps, is a very low-ranking army and is a very outstanding army within the Roman Corps as well. However, at that time, the Gallia army did not have proper weapon training, let alone tactical training, so of course, that difference may not be just an exaggeration. However, I am once again surprised by the leap of your accident to apply it to the Goguryeo army. And don't get confused between the East, the East, and the Orient from the perspective of Rome. And another comedy from your contradictory writing is that you cited Alexander the Great's expedition as an example. At that time, Macedonia, unlike Greece, was a very powerful premised kingdom. They were all conscripted soldiers and had no civic concept. My my. And as I said above, Goguryeo is a national country. Just as Roman citizenship appeared as patriotism and voluntary participation in the Western kingdoms at that time, the strong sense of national unity that Goguryeo speaks the same language appears to be a positive effect.
Don't you see the unity of the public and the people in the Battle of Ansi Fortress and the Battle of Yodongseong Fortress? If you add more than Rome, you won't do worse. Of course, that doesn't mean that I'm a nationalist. As I refuted you above, all your words are contradictory and have no proper basis. And even if it's based on facts, it's not drawing a proper conclusion because it's soaked in the childishness of the thinking process and the four majorities of Roman worship. And if you want to raise one more question, please be polite. There was a question raised by secwind23. It's an answer that's obsessed with nationalism. War is a state's all-out effort...not just the military, but the foreign economy...It covers everything... In short, the state has to push him hard behind the army... Why did Carthage lose to Rome no matter how fast and crawling it was, no matter how far Carthage was, Hannibal during the Second Poeni War? We lost because of the lack of support from the Roman Navy and the incompetent Carthage government that took control of the sea... Rome overwhelms Goguryeo in terms of economic power, the size of the country, and the governing system. What you said is also correct. We can't just weigh the war over military power. He took the Hannibal of Carthage as an example. Although there was a rare master named Hannibal, Rome eventually won because Rome had a rare master named Scipio. At the time of Hannibal's use of cavalry, Scipio quickly accepted the groundbreaking siege-destruction operation and applied it to the Roman army. Hannibal's tactics were quickly introduced to the Roman army because of Scipio's excellence rather than because of the superiority of the Roman system. Of course, I don't completely deny Rome's superiority over Carthage in the war. And another reason Rome was able to win the war against Carthage was that it was always Carthage, not Rome, that broke in. If Rome had attacked Carthage, it would not have been able to guarantee the victory. Especially in the days of the First and Second War. In the Third Punic War, Rome was able to capture Carthage because Carthage itself was devastated as if it had almost disappeared. Carthage was able to fall Carthage in the Third War because it interfered deeply within its state affairs to curb Carthage's military power and control all supplies. Of course, I also think that war is not just the victory or defeat of the battle, but the competitiveness of the country itself. Therefore, the all-out war between Rome and Goguryeo was never conceivable. That's why we compared military power. That's why he said Goguryeo was more dominant. However, Rome's national power is overwhelming, so it cannot be said that Rome wins. First of all, Mongolian troops invaded deep into Eastern Rome at the end of the Middle Ages. And I was terrified of Europe. This was possible because Mongolia dominated all Asia at the time, but if you go into more detail, there was an innovative difference in food storage. The Mongolians are horseback riding people. The horseback riding people traditionally had a food processing technique called Po. And this technology called Po is believed to have been with the horseback riding people for a long time. Compared to other countries, the problem of food supply is very good. Goguryeo is also believed to have had the technology of Po. In addition, Rome's economic power was very solid, and Rome's wealth was the best at the time. However, it is the appearance of Rome in our image. It is labor that truly produces value throughout that society. Things like agriculture, fisheries, mining, etc., which are commonly referred to as primary and secondary industries. But how can such wealth increase as a whole when there was no innovative development in productivity in the Roman era? What is often thought to be Roman wealth is limited to the Roman home country, the Italian Peninsula. At that time, wealth throughout Europe was only concentrated in Rome. On the contrary, the surrounding areas would have become poor. Even if it was within Rome's sphere of influence, it was close to a colony in a modern sense. So Rome has been depicted in such a violent way, and there has been a constant independence movement in the surrounding area. Of course, it was hidden in the shade by the history of power. Of course, there was trade with regions outside the Roman power, but it was limited. The overall increase in wealth in society should be an increase in productivity. Otherwise, no matter how it is distributed, it will eventually just spin around. What I'm trying to say is that Rome is not the kind of spring water that endlessly springs waves, just as it remains in your image. Rome was a European loser who couldn't unite Europe into a single country, pressed it with force, and kept it within its sphere of influence. The idea that Rome's social system is very stable and powerful is only a misunderstanding. Of course, the country lasted longer than Goguryeo, but it was possible because there were no strong forces around Rome to shake Rome's national power. In fact, how many times has Rome faced a truly strong force before such expansion? Like some of the already aging trading partners around the Mediterranean, the dying Greek countries, and some of the Western Asian countries that don't even count on the country axis in Asia, the already declining Asian powers, or barbarians in Gallia without a country... Did you have a real opponent? Of course, Rome was strong. It was really strong. But if such a country was in the middle of Asia, would it have been able to look like a country? Hundreds of years before becoming a country. Was it possible to survive? Did they watch the slow development over a thousand years? There's definitely a Roman story, too. When Augustus divides the sphere of influence between Antony and Rome, Antony chooses the east. Not only does it include Italy's home country, but it's not his own background. This is because the wealth of Asia included in the east of Rome was very superior to that of mainland Rome. In East Asia, its productivity and abundance of goods are as good as in West Asia. At least it was richer than Rome. As mentioned above, Roman wealth imprinted in the public's head is not Rome's own wealth, but the exploitation wealth. This is because goods flowed into Rome. Asia's economic power was by no means inferior to Rome. A wise strategist would identify those fatal shortcomings of Rome and break the link. Especially during the time of Roman enactment, which was called the heyday of Rome, voices of dissatisfaction erupted from neighboring countries. The solidity of Rome's national power is that it doesn't seem like the public's idea. To sum up, 1. Rome's explosive expansion after the Punic War had the help of a genius named Scipio before Rome's structural superiority. 2. The wealth of Rome is not only limited to its home country in Italy, but also to the wealth concentrated in the surrounding regions, not the excellence of productivity itself. 3. The fact that Rome had no strong opponent to threaten the state was a major factor. In this way, much of Rome's greatness is just an illusion. This is a request from imjin9092. Of course, Goguryeo wins because Goguryeo has its own tactics with fast cavalry. On the other hand, Rome won with a short double-edged sword with heavy and long infantry. Hmm, I also used a sword called Gladius. They wore large shields and steel armor and engaged in an approach battle. If Goguryeo invaded Rome, there would be a mountain range. If you look at the Queen Gwanggaeto, there is a phrase saying that it occupied Tobun in the 8th year of Yeongnak. Toben is the Tibet of today. If Rome responded to the castle, Goguryeo would win. Northeast Asia used gunpowder-like objects, and in the Three Kingdoms, Jojo invented the dialyzer. They invent faster than Rome. And it's useless to use the Germanic as mercenaries. I'm sure you all know that I'm chased by the Huns. And when King Gwanggaeto ascended the throne, the people followed and respected the leader, so internal strife rarely occurs. In the history book, there is a phrase like this. " When King Yeongrak recruited great soldiers, he gathered from all over the country and volunteered for the army on his own, and Goguryeo wins. There would be no problem if the horseback riding people were used as food problems. This is the end of Wndudrhkd1's question. The fight between the powers and the superpowers may not be able to predict victory due to numerous variables, but I want to give a vote to Goguryeo. Orient is close to Korea in terms of location. Then, if hundreds of thousands of troops suddenly come, Rome will be able to take at least half of Orient. Moreover, if you continue to use this to encourage the Germanic people north of the Rhine River and to encourage some tribes of Gallia, who have Roman bad feelings, it will not be very helpful.Even if I do, I don't think Rome will care much. And if you go to Egypt through Orient and take about 50,000 cavalry, you are likely to win (the tiger's child must be a tiger), and the generals of King Gwanggaeto (a little awkward) are also expected to follow King Gwanggaeto's tactics while fighting King Gwanggaeto. And the area around the Nile on the Egyptian side will be well-farming, but Roman stories say that just what remains from it will be responsible for 3/1 of Rome's total food. I'm sure it's not certain, but by that extent, it'll surely be overflowing with 200,000 to 300,000 people. In addition, I am not sure about Goguryeo's maritime power, but what if it goes through Espanya Portugal instead of going to the sea after occupying Africa? Of course, King Gwanggaeto would have been better than me, so he might have come up with a better way. In addition, if the Germanic continues to wander around the Rhine, double-sided attacks using the Germanic will be possible. In addition, if the Germanic people continue to invade after occupying Africa, there is a high probability that they will move to Goguryeo with a half chance. Obviously, history would not work if it were like this, but what if historians, or ordinary people, did it? -> I can't understand what you're saying.
It's hard for me to say anything because it's all unclear. First of all, the Orient regions called from a Western perspective are the current Southwest Asia and India regions. It's definitely closer to Rome geographically. And in the past history special, there was a story about Goguryeo's maritime power. It was said that Goguryeo's maritime power was able to win the war against the Tang Dynasty because it crushed the Tang army. At that time, Goguryeo's maritime power was at least superior to Sudang. In many ways, such as shipbuilding, weapons, and marine technology. However, the Roman Navy is also excellent. Because it moves around the oars rather than sails, it has more advantages in inland seas such as the West Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, where the wind is not constant, and mobility and direction change are better. The way the Goguryeo Navy can beat the Roman Navy in the naval battle is to go out focusing on long-distance attacks without allowing access. Rome uses ships colliding with each other or using a "bridge" to cross the enemy's ship to fight a hundred troops. It's natural in the West when long-range weapons such as bows are not developed. And one more thing, the area of the Nile River at the time was a food farm in Rome, including Sicily Island. Alexandria alone has a population of about 1 million and is a major food exporter, so if you take control of this place, the food problem will be solved. Source of content: Adding content of objection to writing directly (2003-09-030 02:32 Additional content of objection) This is a question raised by Youngini91. There are so many questions like this that I have rejected and revealed the reasons for rejection rather than answering them one by one. However, I would rather answer like this when I raise questions continuously. Now, please don't raise this kind of question. The lower article was sent as a reason for refusing to raise a question. You're definitely right. What you're saying is really 100% right. However, I don't deny it, nor do I insist that Goguryeo will win entirely under the title of "Goguryo Seung." What I'm doing is cartoonistic, but you can think of it as similar to a weather forecast. It is impossible to accurately specify the weather forecast. So, they often predict that possibility and get it wrong. However, it is not meaningless. Because it predicts the possibility of future weather changes with the weather conditions that have been going on. This thing I do is the same thing. They're interesting, though. It is to understand the situation of Goguryeo and Rome within the scope of my knowledge and to predict the possibility of a fight between the two in a hypothetical situation. And I decided that Goguryeo was dominant. If you want to raise this problem, tell me not to go to the Meteorological Administration and the broadcasting station before doing this.
In terms of national power and population, it will be difficult to surpass Rome's quantitative power. However, if both Rome and Goguryeo prepare for the optimal war performance and imagine war, Goguryeo will be more advantageous.
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기