You win the Internet.

The Corvus had much success in battle, but it is thought to have significantly weighed down ships and offset their center of mass. So at one point, the Roman Navy was stuck in a storm and is thought to have lost over 350 naval ships (and 300 cargo ships) and 100k men at once. It is thought that the corvus might have been responsible for making the ships more likely to capsize during this storm, as the Romans stopped using them after this disaster [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corvus_(boarding_device)

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_withdrawal_from_Africa_(...

I can't imagine how their ennemies must have felt in those instances.

E.g. Recruiting and equipping a huge army once, but losing it in a battle. Versus building an economic machine around the ability to continually recruit, train, and equip huge armies.

1) Start with children who don't know any better.

2) See #1.

The reason that Russia is enlisting prisoners, is because the MOD needs more people than their peace-time mandatory service contracts are able to provide, but knows that a full draft would be highly unpopular.

Roman recruitment was nothing of the sort. It was not voluntary, it was expected that everyone would participate, and there would be serious consequences for draft-dodgers, both on the level of their local communities, and on a wider social scope.

"Will service improve my personal situation? Enough to be worth it?"

Hence why recruitment correlates with unemployment.

Nations with effective recruitment policies understood this, and typically funded it with things they had in abundance (e.g. land grants, pensions, etc).

Russians like to call Moscow the third Rome and their leaders don't care about losses.

Also, even experience wouldn't necessarily be helpful against the U.S. army in direct combat if it came to that. People sometimes call the U.S. military pampered and oversupplied, but they might forget that, being so often deployed in major operations, it's, aside from being the world's best funded military, also probably one of the world's the most experienced militaries with troops and tactics tested in hard, practical, multifaceted combat.

But if they do win (for the record, I hope they don't), it won't be because they had superior technology. Or superior generals. It won't be because their cause was righteous.

They will have won because they kept piling on with more infantry beyond what anyone would have thought possible.

Denialism's a fucking superpower.

We don't lose lives, we spend money but not enough that we actually feel it, Russia need to concentrate so much on it their ability to act elsewhere is disminished (sure they launch all their triggers/ Houthi, Venezuela, Sub-saharian africa, but it's not 2016 anymore), ...

It's frankly horrible, but every time an ukrainian solider dies to kill two russian soldiers, western countries safety position improves. I'm not saying I agree with that, or think it's good, to be clear. But I think that the west never considered Ukraine in their sphere and the horrors that have happened since 2013 have invariably been in favor of "us" and not russia, and russia is so focused on playing the game the way it was played last century it feels like they missed it.

This is just weird, because Russia is a much weaker country than the US, and many European countries.

Economically, they are tiny. e.g. I just Googled and found this

https://twitter.com/BWJones/status/1568223569947275264?lang=...

It says Russia's economy is smaller than that of California, Texas, and New York. That sounds about right.

(and of course war is mainly an economic contest)

---

They are not a threat to the West. The West is a threat to Russia.

Russia is aggressive and violent because they're in a weak position. They were invaded by Napolean, by Germany in WW I, and by Hitler's Germany in WW II (notably, these are all western powers).

Russia lost ~27,000,000 people in World War II, while the US lost ~400,000.

In the meantime, the US has NEVER had a war on its soil.

---

The US would not accept missiles in Cuba in the 1960's. Would we accept Chinese missiles in Mexico in 2024?

It's not a surprise that they would not accept NATO weapons in Ukraine.

Obviously I'm not condoning the invasion, but I'd also say that old men in the US are playing with the lives of young Ukrainian men.

If the US wanted to end this war, we could do it today by actually winning it with our weapons. Instead we trickle out the bare minimum of weapons, ensuring the war grinds to a stalemate.

---

If I were Zelensky, I wouldn't make myself and my citizens dependent on powers who actually don't want to win the war.

I wouldn't want to be dependent on people like you, who just want to use the lives of my citizens for to gain an inch in an imaginary game that has little consequence for them.

Nothing stops Russia from ceasing warfare and signing a permanent peace (and trade!) agreement with the West. Obviously nobody is invading Russia nor does anyone in Europe have the slightest interest in it. In January 2022 they were still imagining Putin as a partner. They can barely bother to invest in their militaries or Ukraine's even now.

There would never be warfare again at that latitude from the Atlantic to the Pacific - and back again, all the way around the planet. Russians would be far better off, living in peace for generations to come. But Putin wants an empire.

Only if you don't count wars in the US against Britain, Mexico, Spain, Native American nations.

Before you sympathize too much with Carthage, bear in mind that their (well documented by contemporary sources even if you account for anti-Carthagian propaganda from some Roman sources) religious practices were distinctly grotesque, involving no shortage of child sacrifice that even included burning children alive. Notable families were also encouraged to do the same to their first sons in times of crisis, but would often buy the children of poor people to go in their place.

I know the Romans really, really disliked the Carthagians, so it must have tainted their view on them in all circumstances, but even then, there are enough sources professing outright disgust about their sacrificial practices to give the complaints some weight. And if Romans of all people are disgusted with how brutal a country's cultural practices are, you can imagine that they probably were pretty damn awful.

I'm reminded of how most all the hallmarks we attribute to the Spartans turns out to be literal hearsay of the time (much of it emanating from...yep, times of conflict/rivalry). Although they were apparently intentionally secretive, it's pretty easy to imagine some not-anthropologist merchants passing along gossip which gets taken in by the rival permanent settlements.

Not that Carthage is free from accusation, but I'm reading some historians actually claim Romans found the religious ceremony of sacrifice to be abhorrent, as opposed to the more general infanticide that was recorded throughout the larger region (including Rome) for presumably a more eugenic/pragmatic purpose.

Sometimes dismissing evidence because of perceived bias is simply incorrect.

I also didn't dismiss potential evidence for Carthage's sacrificial culture, of which there's enough to make the accusation, but really, only that.

I don't actually have a horse in the races of dead people, but I do hesitate to perpetuate even ancient culture wars. It's usually just going to make more use of people's tribal desire than their deductive skills, though why people have emotions about ancient, dead societies, I'll never know.

Now imagine Carthage won the Punic wars and destroyed Rome, what would we be disgusted with while reading about Roman customs? What would we be considering brutal, awful and barbaric?

It's also generally absurd to think that I must automatically be influenced by some propaganda if I consider plausible the ancient records and evidence of another society's extreme sacrificial practices.

As another comment in this reply thread mentions, (though it mistakes Aztecs with Maya), people spent decades thinking that accounts of mass Aztec child sacrifice were colonial era-biased exaggerations, until mass graves of children were much more recently found showing signs not only of sacrifice but torture in advance (to induce tears for the god Tlaloc among other reasons).

Sometimes historical cultures are just awful in certain ways that have to be mentioned in posterity, even if we can appreciate other aspects of those cultures. This applies to any culture and should.

The principal cause for why Rome was so successful at beating up its neighbours was well-executed logistics and a capable bureaucracy.

----

[1] Interesting, but non-nonsensical. How would labeling the parts of an already-completed ship meaningfully impact reverse-engineering efforts? It's a ancient ship, not an composite airplane, or a microchip, you can rip it apart, piece-by-piece, without the benefit of labeling.

The older I get, the more I'm convinced he's right. The names of parts helps give some amount of context and purpose to why a thing was done, what it's role is, etc.

This gives a much quicker comprehension to the thing you're trying to understand - consider someone handing you a codebase you've never seen, and a vague description of what it does. Is it easier to understand with well named functions, variables and types? What if the all function names were replaced with f1, f2, ... fn, and variable names were replaced with v1, v2, ... vn, and so on?

What if it wasn't a complete codebase, but only part of it, and had gone through a bit of a scramble (the Carthaginian ship in question had been wrecked as I understand it)? What if you were a brand new programmer (Rome was new to the whole ship thing then...)?

You're absolutely right that it's not strictly necessary to have the labels for reverse engineering, but the labels certainly help... for context it was 8 years from the start of the war until the battle in question, and the fleet was built in just 4 years. At that rate, I find the label thing a plausible contributing factor.