Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Speculative History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Speculative History Speculative History Forum - Alternate History, What If Questions, Pseudo History, and anything outside the boundaries of mainstream historical research


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 9th, 2012, 08:48 AM   #41

kauchenvinci-0's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2012
From: On a chain of Extinct Volcanoes
Posts: 1,628
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guaporense View Post
Timeline:

9 August 117 AD - Trajan dies, Guaporense becomes emperor! Guaporense finds out .
This is the best line I have ever found on historum.
It is very much impressive the way you have presented about the scenario , though it appears more like a historical fantasy than a speculation .
I wish you were the emperor of the Rome and invaded Kushans and Satavahanas
Guoporense Vs Vima Kadphises and Vasishta Putra Pulomavi[would be our first lesson on indian history]



For some information ,
Vasishta Putra Pulomavi was the Successor of Gautami putra Satakarni , the most powerful lord of the Indian Subcontinent during his timeand Vima Kadphises was the father of Kanishka , under whom Kanishkas were at zenith
Interesting ...

Last edited by kauchenvinci-0; July 9th, 2012 at 10:23 AM.
kauchenvinci-0 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old July 9th, 2012, 12:08 PM   #42

emperor of seleucid's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2012
From: Arche Seleukeia
Posts: 2,374

Quote:
Originally Posted by manas teja View Post
This is the best line I have ever found on historum.
It is very much impressive the way you have presented about the scenario , though it appears more like a historical fantasy than a speculation .
I wish you were the emperor of the Rome and invaded Kushans and Satavahanas
Guoporense Vs Vima Kadphises and Vasishta Putra Pulomavi[would be our first lesson on indian history]



For some information ,
Vasishta Putra Pulomavi was the Successor of Gautami putra Satakarni , the most powerful lord of the Indian Subcontinent during his timeand Vima Kadphises was the father of Kanishka , under whom Kanishkas were at zenith
Interesting ...
Rome has no chance in Iran like alone in India.
emperor of seleucid is offline  
Old July 9th, 2012, 01:18 PM   #43

RusEvo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,392

How important is access to reinforcements during a long Roman campaign?
RusEvo is offline  
Old July 9th, 2012, 03:00 PM   #44

Guaporense's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2011
From: Brazil
Posts: 4,954
Blog Entries: 15
Estimating 2nd century India's warmaking potential & theater size


Geographical size of the Indian theater of operations:

West to East - 2,500 kilometers
North to South - 2,900 kilometers

Which would be the dimensions of a rectangle of 7.25 million square kilometers.

For effect of comparison, at the time of Trajan the Roman Empire spread

West to East - 5,900 kilometers
North to South - 4,100 kilometers

Which would be the dimensions of a rectangle of 24.2 million square kilometers.

Therefore, the area of India wouldn't be that large for the Imperial Roman Army as it would be about a quarter of the territorial space in which the Roman armies projected power.

Demographics and manpower

We have very little information of 2nd century India even if compared to other ancient civilizations. I have read demographic estimates of India going from 30 million people in 300 BC to 75 million people in the 1st century. I think that a value of 50 million would be reasonable.

India would be divided into the following geographical areas:

Large areas/kingdoms:

1) Kushan - Indus Valley
2) Kushan - Ganges Valley
3) Sakas
4) Satavahana
5) Dasarna
6) Daksina
7) Kalinga

Small kingdoms of the South

8) Puzhinadu
9) Cheras
10) Ay
11) Pandyas
12) Cholas
13) Kongu

14) Ganges Delta

Let's give/guesstimate populations of the order of 4-9 million for the large areas, 1-2 million for the small kingdoms and 5-6 million for the Ganges Delta to fill up the subcontinent. We have:

1) Kushan - Indus Valley: 5.5 million
2) Kushan - Ganges Valley: 7.0 million
3) Sakas: 6.5 million
4) Satavahana: 8.5 million
5) Dasarna: 3.5 million
6) Daksina: 3.0 million
7) Kalinga: 4.5 million
subtotal: 38.5 million

8) Puzhinadu: 1.4 million
9) Cheras: 1.3 million
10) Ay: 1.2 million
11) Pandyas: 2.1 million
12) Cholas: 2.3 million
13) Kongu: 1.5 million
subtotal: 9.8 million

14) Ganges Delta: 5.5 million
total: 53.8 million

So in my imagined invasion India would have a total population of around 54 million.

How large would be the armies that such Indian states could field? Well, according to the academic sources, these were the sizes of the armed forces of some of the largest ancient, medieval and early modern states:

Roman Empire: 400,000 men, population of 70 million,
Han Empire: 200,000 men, population of 55 million,
Tang Empire: 500,000 men, population of 80 million,
Ming Empire: 1,200,000 men, population of 150 million
Qing Empire: 800,000 men, population of 250 million
France 1600 AD: 80,000 men, population of 18.5 million

Armed force size in proportion to the population:

Roman Empire: 0.57%
Han Empire: 0.36%
Tang Empire: 0.63%
Ming Empire: 0.8%
Qing Empire: 0.32%
France 1600 AD: 0.43%


The proportion fluctuates around 0.3 to 0.8% of the total population. Ancient and Medieval states couldn't field more than 1% of their population in a permanent basis, mainly because these agricultural economies had difficulty in sustaining a non-farming population, including a soldier population. Therefore, it's probable that India in the 2nd century AD also followed the same rules, therefore an Indian state of 2 million people could field at most around 20,000 men while a Indian state of 10 million could field at most 100,000 men.

Therefore the Roman armies that landed on the coast of India in 119 AD, at 300,000 men or 0.56% of India's population would have been of comparable size as the combined total of armies of all Indian states combined.

Composition of Indian forces

Historically, ancient and medieval armies tend to have between 5% to 25% of their forces as cavalry, usually around 10%. While the smaller horses of ancient and medieval times had 450 kg on average. An Indian Elephant would has on average 3,500 kg or about 8 times the size of a horse. While a chariot consisted of 4 horses and 1 wagon.

Therefore, I think that a typical Indian army of 20,000 men would have about 150-200 elephants and 150-200 chariots, considering the same muscle mass of elephants and chariots in proportion to the men as cavalry does in other ancient and medieval armies.

Last edited by Guaporense; July 9th, 2012 at 04:40 PM.
Guaporense is offline  
Old July 9th, 2012, 03:09 PM   #45

Guaporense's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2011
From: Brazil
Posts: 4,954
Blog Entries: 15

Quote:
Originally Posted by Belloc View Post
Now establish a foothold along the coast of India is far more achieveable in my opinion, although the supply and communication lines would be overly stretched to the point that the danger of the local commanders becoming mini-caesars in their own right would be a lingering problem.
Emperor Guaporense would go to the front as the supreme commander of the invasion forces. While the emperor leaves Hadrian as his regent to take care of the internal business of the empire.
Guaporense is offline  
Old July 9th, 2012, 04:24 PM   #46

Guaporense's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2011
From: Brazil
Posts: 4,954
Blog Entries: 15
Fighting Power


Macedonian and Indian encounters

The only surviving data regarding engagements between Greco-Roman and Ancient Indian militaries comes from Alexander's Indian campaign. Specially the battle of Hydaspes. Here are the two sets of numbers given by the two sources for the battle:

Arrian: Alexander's 11,000 men inflicts 23,000 casualties on 34,000 enemies while losing 310 men. This implies in a ratio of casualty infliction capability of 229 times.

Other (Diodorus et al): Alexander's 40,000 men inflict 12,000 casualties on 31,000 enemies while losing 1,080 men. Which implies in a ratio of casualty infliction capability of 8.6 for the Macedonians. Not a unrealistic number: the Germans had the same ratio in the Eastern front during the Battle of Kursk against the Soviet Union.

Arrian's numbers are clearly exaggerated to the N-degree while the other numbers don't appear useless at all. Though, Greco-Roman sources always tend to overestimate the size of the enemy forces and their casualties. This also applies to everyone else: American sources on WW2 tend to overestimate German losses and the size of the German forces.

Note that Alexander conquered a region of about 500-600 thousand square kilometers in India, containing perhaps 10-15% of the population of the subcontinent and the enemy forces he encountered were about 30,000 - 35,000 men. Numbers consistent with my estimation that standing armies should have been about 0.5% of the total population.

There were several other encounters between Greek and Indian armies, but we have very little information regarding these encounters.

Roman legion vs Macedonian phalanx

I should also add that a Roman legion of 120 AD would be a very different fighting force than Alexander's army of 330 BC, 450 years earlier. In fact, the Roman army of 120 AD would probably easily destroy Alexander's forces in a battle with equal numbers. Why?

The Roman legion evolved from the phalanx and was shaped by the continuous state of warfare in Italy. It was a superior form of organization even in it's early "Polybian" form.

Well, in the mid 2nd century BC the Roman legions when they were a citizen militia already were able to easily destroy Macedonian Phalanxes. Every time the Roman militia legions meet the Macedonian phalanxes that defeated Indian forces, these militia legions always prevailed over the phalanxes. And these forces looked like this:
Click the image to open in full size.
Not as remotely as well equipped as the Imperial Roman armies of Trajan's days:
Click the image to open in full size.

Over the next 200 years the Roman Army evolved from a citizen militia to a professional conscripted army after Marius reforms. Which greatly increased the effectiveness of the legions, now that they were a professional fighting force with Officers and NCO's. Resembling more like a modern armed force than an ancient army.

According to Morris, I.:
Quote:
In the 30s BCE the Roman Republic had roughly 250,000 men under
arms, organized into devastatingly effective legions, supported by the most
extraordinary logistical system in the premodern world, and led (much of the
time) by outstandingly professional officers and NCOs (from an enormous
literature, I have benefited particularly from D. Campbell 2003; J. B.
Campbell 1994; Erdkamp 2007; Goldsworthy 1996, 2003; Roth 1999).
He later compares it with medieval conditions:

Quote:
Throughout the Western Middle Ages armed forces remained tiny,
disorganized, and poorly supplied (Haldon 2005; International Medieval
Logistics Project (http://www.medievallogistics.bham.ac.uk), rarely reaching
one-tenth the size of imperial Roman forces and never coming close to
matching Roman effectiveness.
By the time of Augustus the Roman army further evolved. Now conscription was abolished and instead the army became a fully voluntary force. All Roman soldiers were now volunteer career soldiers that received annual salaries for the jobs as professional soldiers. Standards of equipment and technology improved.

To get an idea of the improvement in technology, take catapults, for instance, Alexander's catapults were used only once in open battle. That's because during Alexander's day the Greco-Roman catapult technology was still in it's first stages: the design of the torsion springs and the proportions of the catapult frame were still not optimized. While frames were mostly made of wood with few metal parts. By 119 AD, there were catapults made only for battlefield use, with iron lightweith frames and mounted on wagons specially for such function. The Roman armies of 119 AD had vastly superior firepower than other ancient armies, including the Roman armies of 300 years earlier and 300 years later.

Salaries

This is an example of a preserved account of a Roman Auxiliary soldier in Egypt of 81 AD:

Quintus Julius Proculus from Damascus

He received 247.5 drachmas in the first installment of the year.

Out of which:

10 drachmas went for hay, 80 drachmas went for food, 12 drachmas for boots and socks, 20 drachmas for the Saturnalia at the camp and 60 drachmas unspecified, for a total expenditures of 182 drachmas. Therefore his net balance was 66.5 drachmas, deposited in his account, which had 136 drachmas before and now increased to 201.5 drachmas.

Note: 1 sestertii = 1 drachma, this auxiliary soldier had annual salary of 750 sestertii, or 250 sestertii per trimester. There was a conversion cost of 1% to convert sestertii into drachma, the currency used in the Eastern provinces of the Empire. Auxilia had the worst salaries, of 750 sestertii, if compared to 900 sestertii for a legionary and 14,500 sestertii for a Centurion, which was an official.

Table of Organization of a Legion

By 120 AD, a typical Legion would probably had such organization:

Legio XLI

-- Core Legionaries: Heavy Infantry
---- 1st Cohors (800 men)
---- 2nd Cohors (480 men)
---- 3rd Cohors (480 men)
------ 1st centuria (80 men)
------ 2nd centuria (80 men)
------ 3rd centuria (80 men)
-------- 1st contubernium (8 men)
-------- 2nd contubernium (8 men)
-------- 3rd contubernium (8 men)
-------- 4th contubernium (8 men)
-------- 5th contubernium (8 men)
-------- 6th contubernium (8 men)
-------- 7th contubernium (8 men)
-------- 8th contubernium (8 men)
-------- 9th contubernium (8 men)
-------- 10th contubernium (8 men)
------ 4th centuria (80 men)
------ 5th centuria (80 men)
------ 6th centuria (80 men)
---- 4th Cohors (480 men)
---- 5th Cohors (480 men)
---- 6th Cohors (480 men)
---- 7th Cohors (480 men)
---- 8th Cohors (480 men)

-- Auxilia cohorts
---- Cavalry
----- 1st Ala milliaria (720 men)
----- 1nd Ala quingenaria (480 men)
----- 2nd Ala quingenaria (480 men)
----- 3rd Ala quingenaria (480 men)

---- Light infantry
----- 1st Cohors milliaria (720 men)
----- 1st Cohors quingenaria (480 men)

---- Archers and manuballistae
----- 1st Cohors milliaria (720 men)
----- 1st Cohors quingenaria (480 men)

---- Catapults
----- 1st Cohors quingenaria (480 men) (scorpions)
----- 2nd Cohors quingenaria (480 men) (light ballistae)
----- 3rd Cohors quingenaria (480 men) (heavy ballistae)

The Roman Legion was a type of military organization so advanced that in fact it looked much more like a 20th century division than anything from the ancient, medieval and early modern times.

For instance, the Legion had a NCO (non-commissioned officer) for every squad of 8 men, a officer for every 80 men (the Centurion) and upper forms of officer organization. Very much like a modern army: the legion's legate would be our modern general. Such highly sophisticated organization enabled the legion to maximize it's fighting power by harnessing the full measure of potential from each constituent soldier.

Psychology

War is a traumatic experience. The Imperial Roman Legion thanks to it's structure was better able to endure the hardships of war than other ancient, medieval and early modern armies. How? The soldiers trained together and fought together in their own small units. This creates the psychological comfort to fight the enemies with our buddies, which drastically improves

While other Ancient armies were simple mobs of thousands or tens of thousands of men trowed into battle. And the soldiers didn't know each other, hence, without any kind of psychological comfort. Other armies, as result, had much more morale and break much more easily than the mighty legions.

Roman fighting power

So, we have:

120 AD Legion > 30 BC Legion > 150 BC Legion > 150 BC Phalanx >= 330 BC Phalanx > 330 BC Indian army

The Indian armies of the early 2nd century AD probably weren't better than those that fought Alexander.

Therefore, I assume, (conservatively) that the Roman casualty infliction capability ratio versus Indian forces would be around 300% or 400%. For instance, a Roman army of 25,000 meeting an Indian army of 15,000 would inflict 5,000 casualties while suffering around 750-1,000 casualties in the process. These would be much lower than the ratios implied by the literary accounts on Indian/Macedonian encounters and considering that a Legion would be vastly superior to a Macedonian Phalanx, appear quite modest. But, however, it's clear that these accounts are biased and tend to vastly exaggerate enemy losses and the size of the enemy forces as well.

Last edited by Guaporense; July 9th, 2012 at 04:35 PM.
Guaporense is offline  
Old July 9th, 2012, 04:41 PM   #47

kauchenvinci-0's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2012
From: On a chain of Extinct Volcanoes
Posts: 1,628
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by emperor of seleucid View Post
Rome has no chance in Iran like alone in India.
And that's why I called it a Fantasy.
kauchenvinci-0 is offline  
Old July 9th, 2012, 04:50 PM   #48

Mr. Rhombus's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Mar 2011
From: Over The Hills And Far Away
Posts: 897

This is probably the most amusing thread I've seen here in some time, and I mean that in a not at all offensive way.

Though I do have a slight issue: if the population of India was supposedly 75 million in the first century AD, wouldn't it have grown even bigger in the second century? Why the figure of 50 million? Admittedly, though, I very well may be forgetting some event that would have reduced the population if India between AD 1 and AD 119.
Mr. Rhombus is offline  
Old July 9th, 2012, 05:15 PM   #49

HackneyedScribe's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,540
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
How large would be the armies that such Indian states could field? Well, according to the academic sources, these were the sizes of the armed forces of some of the largest ancient, medieval and early modern states:

Roman Empire: 400,000 men, population of 70 million,
Han Empire: 200,000 men, population of 55 million,
Tang Empire: 500,000 men, population of 80 million,
Ming Empire: 1,200,000 men, population of 150 million
Qing Empire: 800,000 men, population of 250 million
France 1600 AD: 80,000 men, population of 18.5 million

Armed force size in proportion to the population:

Roman Empire: 0.57%
Han Empire: 0.36%
Tang Empire: 0.63%
Ming Empire: 0.8%
Qing Empire: 0.32%
France 1600 AD: 0.43%
We've went over this plenty of times, Guapo. From HeavenlyKaghan: The total force of the Eastern Han was probably larger than the total Roman army although not necessarily fully professional. The Eastern Han army is typically divided into three types: Jun-Zhou bing(commandery and prefecture army), Wang-Guo bing(army of the feudal kings), and bian-fang bing(frontier army)
Among these, the Jun-Zhou bing were scattered across the empire and were composed largely of mercenaries and therefore professional, although many soldiers were taken from criminals and low class wanderers. By the end of the Eastern Han, they became the major forces utilized among the different regional forces when they fought each other. Because of the complexity of this army, we cannot really determine the actual size of their forces; however, we know that many of the regional commandery governors had tens of thousands of soldiers.
The fiefs in Eastern Han times were too small, and the armies owned by the kings were small and negligible.
The frontier army is the third type of military and they are semi professional farmer soldiers like the fubing and wei suo of Tang and Ming. The size of the force was hinted in the Hou Han Shu, biography of Xi Qiang, which mentioned that "in the three prefectures(You, Bing, and Liang), there were over 200,000 soldiers in agricultural colonies."
使君频举奉国命征讨逐寇贼,三州有屯兵二十余万人,弃农桑,被苦役,而未有功效,劳费日滋。
The three prefectures had most of the soldiers of the Northwestern frontier, the most heavily defended region. Therefore, we can assume that the Eastern Han frontier force probably numbered between 300,000-400,000, which is probably around the same size as the frontier army for most of the Western Han(exceptions were during Wudi's time, when the frontier army probably reached an all time high of 800,000-900,000, while during Wang Mang it was around 500,000 in size). These forces were directly owned by the central government and were the backbone of the Eastern Han.
In addition to these three regional forces, the Central Government also had three types of army; Dian wei Jun(inner quarter guards), Gong Wei Jun(palace Guards), and Cheng Wei Jun(city guards), the city guards are the major force and are composed of the northern army and the 12 gates farmer soldiers in Luo Yang. The Northern army was the most powerful force and was composed of around 40,000 full time professional cavalry men. The Jun-Zhou army was probably the largest of the armies in the Eastern Han, so the latter Han’s total force was probably at least 800,000-900,000.

In addition to this, like the Roman Empire, the Eastern Han also loved to conscript "barbarian" soldiers into their army. During the Qiang rebellion, Ren Shang and Deng Zun conscripted numerous Qiang soldiers into the Han army to crush the rebellion, the Southern Xiongnu and Wuhuan were two other forces which were regularly brought into the Han ranks. The exact size of the barbarian establishment is unknown but probably varied widely over time and are at least in the tens of thousands, most likely more in times of trouble.


The first half period of the Roman army is typically composed of the legions and the auxiliars and for the most part the size of the legion is only between 150,000-200,000. While the auxiliars were usually between 200,000-300,000. Together, both legion and auxiliary the total Roman establishment usually numbered between 300,000-400,000, and occasionally up to half a million. This is much smaller than the near million men force of much of the Eastern Han, although the former, besides the auxiliars, were exclusively full time professional.


By the way, besides the Han, you also underestimated Tang army size. 500,000 was the number of soldiers in its border garrisons, rather than its total army size.

Quote:
War is a traumatic experience. The Imperial Roman Legion thanks to it's structure was better able to endure the hardships of war than other ancient, medieval and early modern armies. How? The soldiers trained together and fought together in their own small units. This creates the psychological comfort to fight the enemies with our buddies, which drastically improves

While other Ancient armies were simple mobs of thousands or tens of thousands of men trowed into battle. And the soldiers didn't know each other, hence, without any kind of psychological comfort. Other armies, as result, had much more morale and break much more easily than the mighty legions.
I think you should learn the basics about non-Western ancient armies. Organizing units of "war-buddies" applies for pretty much everyone. For example, Shang Yang of the Warring States organized the state structure such that it insured relatives and neighbors would be conscripted within the same basic unit, which further strengthens unit cohesiveness.
HackneyedScribe is online now  
Old July 9th, 2012, 05:23 PM   #50

Guaporense's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2011
From: Brazil
Posts: 4,954
Blog Entries: 15
Imagining the Roman invasion of India - part 4


1 January 121 AD - Rome's budget balance from last year

Revenues: 1,000 million sestertii
Expenditures: 1,180 million sestertii
-- 800 million usual imperial expenditures
-- 330 million on additional 25 legion army
-- 50 million on supply transport costs to India (involving the transport of 200,000 tons of supply for 12 months of Indian operations)

Treasury: 4,055 million sestertii

Slaves

The systematic capture of slaves for sale in the Mediterranean slave markets begins. The stupid emperor only had the idea to capture and sell the population of India to pay for the invasion on the 3rd year of the war.

According to Pompeii's graffiti a healty adult male slave was worth 2,500 sestertii. However, most of India's population didn't consist of healthy, adult males. The price of such slaves would vary from 500 sestertii to 2,500 sestertii with a probable average around 1,200 sestertii.

The transport of the Indian slaves would involve the same fleets used to transport troops and supplies. Considering that before the invasion Roman trade with India involved 50 million sestertii and 120 merchant ship loads per year, now it increased to around 1,000 merchant ship loads per year and 400 million sestertii. Each one of these merchant ships would transport hundreds and hundreds of slaves, considering that you pile them up like cattle inside the ship, a significant fraction would die before reaching the Mediterranean, but many would be sold and would yield great revenues.

It would be possible to transport a few hundred thousand slaves every year from India to the Mediterranean. Yielding hundreds of millions of sestertii of revenues, effectively covering the costs of invasion.

For an example of slaves used to finance a Roman expedition look no further than Caesar's Gaulish conquest. Caesar's claims to have enslaved 1 million people during his conquest of Gaul, though I think such number is an exaggeration. Still, the costs of conquering Gaul were smaller than the value of the slaves captured there.

Replacements

The 300,000 men army requires a steady supply of replacements. These replacements are already paid by the 330 million sestertii expenditures, since the death ones in the Indian front don't cost anything while the new soldiers receive their regular salaries.

The new replacements are formed into new centuria units. To maintain unit cohesion, the new soldiers are not mixed up with the old ones. And the new centuria are sent to the frontlines using the transport fleets, which were also engaged into transporting supplies to India and slaves to the Mediterranean.

Theater status, summer 121 AD:
Click the image to open in full size.

The Kushan mobilizes it's entire available military strength, a force of 65,000 men, 12,000 horse and 350 elephants, to try to deal with the massive Roman armies that are conquering the Indus Valley. Note that the Kushan were a central Asian barbarian people that used horses extensively, they also use great quantities of infantry and elephants recruited from their Indian territories.

Corona Exercitus Septembriones engages the Kushan forces, using 8 legions, from legio XXXI though XXXVIII, or 96,000 men, 16,000 cavalry and 1,000 artillery pieces. Many horse traps and caltrops are dropped in the battlefield, while the legions build barricades around the battlefield to prevent the escape of the Kushan forces. The entire Kushan forces march directly into the trap, manage to inflict a few thousand casualties on the Romans thanks to their fighting skills, but in the end the whole 65,000 men force is destroyed.

The allied Saka forces and legions XXXIX and XL continue to press onwards, conquering more territory.

Exercitus III joins forces with Corona Exercitus Meridies ("Army Group South"). While Legio LIII, Legio LIV, Legio LV from Exercitus V, a force totalling 35,000 men, 6,000 cavalry and 400 artillery pieces, attacks the tiny kingdom of Ay, conquering it without many casualties.

The rest of Corona Exercitus Meridies advances towards the small kingdoms of Kongu, Cholas and Pandyas. While the conquered kingdom of Cheras becomes an Ally and provides the Imperial Roman forces with 11,000 men and 90 elephants.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Order of Battle - Summer 121 AD - Indian Front

Corona Exercitus Septembriones
-- Exercitus I
---- Legio XXXI
---- Legio XXXII
---- Legio XXXIII
---- Legio XXXIV
---- Legio XXXV
-- Exercitus II
---- Legio XXXVI
---- Legio XXXVII
---- Legio XXXVIII
---- Legio XXXIX
---- Legio XL
-- Allies
---- 22,000 men
---- 240 elephants

Corona Exercitus Meridies
-- Exercitus III
---- Legio XLI
---- Legio XLII
---- Legio XLIII
---- Legio XLIV
---- Legio XLV
-- Exercitus IV
---- Legio XLVI
---- Legio XLVII
---- Legio XLVIII
---- Legio XLIX
---- Legio L
-- Exercitus V
---- Legio LI
---- Legio LII
---- Legio LIII
---- Legio LIV
---- Legio LV
-- Allies
---- 11,000 men
---- 90 elephants

-------------------------------------------------------------

Road building and construction of forts and cities

By the third year of the invasion, the army of 300,000 men has also began building up significant infraestructural improvements in the newly conquered territories.

Click the image to open in full size.

Also, Roman colonies are founded with the invading armies. Each colony consists of a Civitates made up of Roman citizens. That's usual procedure during the Roman conquest of new territories. Gaul, for instance, had 80 new cities founded by the Romans during it's conquest.

In India, a total of several hundred cities would be founded and a road network of tens of thousands of kilometers would be eventually build connecting all of the subcontinent into a integrated defense system.
Guaporense is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Speculative History

Tags
119, hypothetical, india, invasion, operation, overlord, plan, roman



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Roman Invasion of India Salah Speculative History 190 October 27th, 2015 04:31 PM
Operation Overlord: US vs Britain Partorgdunaev War and Military History 13 November 26th, 2011 10:21 AM
What if: American Invasion of Japan (Operation Downfall) ReaganSmash Speculative History 26 November 24th, 2011 01:33 PM
Operation Overlord fails sturm Speculative History 11 November 2nd, 2010 09:00 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.