Click to follow ➕ and share, your wallet will rise every day!
Cover a variety of topics and share a variety of discussions
Use unbridled thinking to write unique reviews
Take a look, think about it, talk about it
Focus on having something new to talk about every day
Today's new conversations:
Gibbon said that the population of the Roman Empire was more than 100 million, is it possible?
I think the pre-Qin military strength is credible, the Spring and Autumn period of the great power military strength is only 30,000 or 40,000, after the Warring States period increased the number of troops, but unilateral dispatch of more than 100,000 people in the war is also very rare, like the Battle of Changping on both sides of the army of nearly one million, that is the army of the country, Qin State counted all the healthy men over fifteen years old, under the age of sixty to make up 600,000, it is also counted in the logistics of the people, not that Qin Zhao's standing military force has hundreds of thousands.
You're in for a problem! During the Battle of Guandu, it was a duel between elite soldiers, and during the Warring States period, it was a duel of all soldiers! The comparison between the two makes no sense at all! Moreover, the plague population dropped greatly at the end of the Han Dynasty, and the population of the three countries together was only a little more than 10 million
Aren't the inhabitants of the province counted as people? The only people who had citizenship during the Augustan period were the people of the Apennine Peninsula and the few inhabitants of the provinces, but 1e is certainly nonsense.
Please distinguish the difference between swords, playthings and weapons, for example, there have been many gold and silver swords and jade swords unearthed in history, you can't say that such weapons were equipped with armies in the same period, and "have" and "popular" are different.
Counting the 50 million people who are squeezed, the Roman Empire is different from us, raising 6 million citizens, taking resources from Gentiles with a total population of 20 million, and how about living with tens of millions of slaves and barbarians
At the cost of losing the ability to assimilate on a large scale, constantly squeezing tens of millions of people in exchange for a relatively high level of Roman citizens in China is just a hundred-year plan, and we will not play in the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period
The cost is too great, the same multi-ethnic state we fused, the Roman Empire failed, this system is not conducive to population growth and the absorption of foreign population, the Roman Empire is fundamentally impossible to achieve great unification
I remember that there was a question about metallurgical technology, some people compared the metallurgical technology of ancient China with Europe, and proved that the ancient metallurgical technology of Europe was not good, and it was difficult to produce high-quality metal products on a large scale
This is a forged issue discourse, and I have never seen a similar opinion in the pseudo-historiography. I've seen one before, and no one denies the existence of Rome throughout the text. There is a criticism, which comes up with a personal attack and questions about knowledge and education, and then it is what catches the non-existence of Rome, what Byzantium outputs against it, and finally becomes any question you have turned into accusations and doubts about the existence of Rome itself, not any specific problem.
In fact, this situation has no point in discussing, but it is very meaningful for public opinion and fan purification. Very clever communication discourse, any of your large paragraphs to put the data in rebuttal, their magic is activated. In cooperation with the control and deletion of the post, a passer-by who was purely browsing hurriedly swept by, and it became a pseudo-historical theory questioning the existence of Rome.