What have the Romans ever done for us
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2024
- Caerleon Roman Day - 1st July 06 Filmed at Caerleon Roman amphitheatre in south Wales, this film looks at some of the armour, and weapons, used by the Roman army.
If you are interested i have posted a few photos of this day.
just copy and paste this url
picasaweb.googl...
rome is everywhere ,roman empire never finished, is extended in all the world, french, spanish, purtuguese, italian, romanian, english ( english for 60 %) are latin, all the planet speak latin, from india to brasil, from france to south africa, from england to mexico etc, you can listen latin words everywhere, in the street, in tv, in a conversation, in a supermarket etc,,, planet is latinized totally, rome is in us forever
latinization came with the HOLY Roman Empire after Constantine the great- 319 on
777jonah888 What? Latinization started with the HRE? WHAT? How the hell did a bunch of germans kick start the evolution of language they didn't even speak?
+777jonah888 but indeed came
@gogoasacenusie about history, TOTALLY agree with you!!!!!
@gothicus1 Thank you very much for your reply! I know very, very little about Roman history, so every little hint helps : ) I assumed they would withdraw from Britain to confront dangers on the continent, and I sort of guessed that would be around 250. But to hear it was as late as 410... Not sure about the benefits of holding Britain, but in retrospective I'd say it would be wiser to have pulled them back earlier to maintain the dominance on the continent. Do you agree?
Thanks Taupin b, Very educational, but these guys need to learn to march.
@SocratesTheGadfly Also the General lethargy of the roman citizens could well explain why they couldn't raise any armies at the end. This again could be attributed to Lead poisoning. I didn't say it was the sole reason, but it certainly was a factor, and like most medical ailments the effects are cumulative.
romans have done a lot for us.For example our entire legal system is based on the romans!
Very true
My Latin teacher came into class today with a Roman shield, sword, and full set of armor and tunic. He even let a kid try it on and take a picture with the sword and pilum. By far the coolest teacher I've had.
@GenderBenderizer Well if it wasnt for Rome,Britannia,Gaul,Spain,Germania etc and all the other barbaric countries would of never found civliazation.If it wasnt for rome there wouldnt be great Architecture,Clean water running through cities etc for all those uncivilizid factions.
Yes the chinese were advanced in technology at an early Age but the roman gave something to the world that the chinese didnt.Civilazation
I am proud to live in Rome, the capital of the greatest empire in history
Its kind of amazing to see. But sadly for Rome, they never bothered to update their fighting methods. In the end, they were undone by their own inability to adapt. (also possibly lead poisoning. Pb the atomic sign for Lead comes from the word Plumbumb, or pluming. ) Still the Roman Empire is responsible for changing the world, probably for the better, despite the nasty reputation.
best reenactment video i have seen !
@johndeerishere Yes, Julius invaded in 55 BC, and again in 54. However, he didn't conquer much, just made the kings and leaders in what is now eastern England to pay tribute to Rome and set up trade and diplomatic bonds. Some land was owned by Rome I guess, but not much. When Claudius invaded in 43 AD it was with a much larger force with the aim of conquering the whole of the British Isles. I'm not sure how long they stayed, but to about 250 AD would be a fair guess.
Romans proved to be one of the finest civilization ever. Even today with our computer and technology would be difficult to manage such an empire with the same efficiency. During that period all the people around the world, from Asia to America were brutal and pitiless. We cannot judge romans behavior with our moral code.
Romans could defeat any kind of phalanx formation very easily. First rank of roman century would pin their shield against the phalangite´s spear. Second rank would come in between fixed spears and stab the phalangite. Very easy and effective way.
I don't care.... in size the most large empire was alexard's empire, but the splendor of the roman empire has unreachable... The strongest army that the world has ever known.
@pog376 I'm afraid he's right. The first Roman incursion into Britain was done by Caesar. Caesar didn't conquer anything there, but Caesar most definitely did get to Britain.
the man with the plumed helmet in the rear rank is he the optio?
I think so
i am greek but i respect the roman war machine.maybe the best army before firearms era.
what is the different between golden helmet and iron helmet?
Werilla Marcus Johang those helmets were brass and they were not as strong as iron helmets
The title of this video made me think of The Life of Brian actually.
>implies China was a unified state at the time
>ghhh.
HAIL THE LEGIONS BRAVEST SOLDIERS OF ALL TIME !
only 25 years of service !!! what a deal!!
25 years in reality was for the Auxiliaries, the Service of a Legionary was 16 years
Ryse son of rome is far beneath Rome 2 total war
@MrNasty50 not raging,not mad about it,not jealous.Just discussing.As you can(or can't?dunno the youtube interface is weird) see the guy I was discussing with before you seemed a lot more calm.I don't care if you really love your country or not,which I can tell you do(happy that you like the place that live in tho),just don't get so annoyed over a conversation :/.It sure wasn't the armies fault,but in the american revolutionary war it ALSO wasn't the fault of the british army troops
@MrNasty50 the "greatest superpower" was so stretched out all over the globe it couldn't respond with full force.Then again,the full brunt of your super modern army did not have much luck against a rag tag group of militia in Vietnam,so that just shows that it is completely possible to do what you have done and in some cases do it better.AMER.REV.:Trained musketmen vs untrained musketmen.VIET.WAR:Trained men with M16s and M60s,tank,jet and helicopter support vs militia with AK47s and mortars
@McShoshau what did they do?? :) lol other then rebelling against brit oppresion there is nothing they could be really proud of :/ sux for them
@TrueHarxel but in that time there`s another advanced army in Persia,& they defeated Roman many times,am i right?
wonder if biggus dickus was there
@DickWhittington1000 Thanks! It’s great to hear someone out there is still watching, and enjoying my videos. And thanks for taking the time to leave such a lovely comment.
I also love it. You deserve 1M subs
some tribesmen are stealing a centurion car XD, great video thanks
The design painted on the shields is the God of war unpersonified.
Haha, Life of Brian. Awesome video!
@supdawg9999999 You obviously havnt read hisorty child.Roman orriginated from Rome on the east coast of italy.The people of romes struggled for years fighting other italian factions before becoming one nation.
If it wasnt for the roman empire all of europe may have not become civilized.
Not to mention the romans made paved roads and created the hot bath.
WE'VE ALL TRAVELLED BACK IN TIME!
jk XD
the roman fought in formation in primerian times.Yes three waves of me the hestati(inexperianced) then the princepes the nthe triarii(spearman).And the cavarly was only men who could really afford the equipment.
if your talkin about pila(pilum) im sure its a roman envention they may have copied the design but advance it with a weak tip that broke once hitting the enemy so they couldnt throw it back
yeh similar that were the original design for the roman one was from,they just improved it to their advantage.Yeh segragated armour i think what it was called after the marian reforms.
@sanctainquisitio isnt that pretty much the roman trademark ? they got most of their tech/architecture from the greeks and perfected any flaws
@wicNKWD37
dont forget original sin and shellfish eating!
oh and not to wear diffrent fabrics of garnment
@sanctainquisitio well if you compare their buildings and art its heavely based on greek architecture.
yeah but rome was a republic just like america is so you could say that america is modern day roman empire
Yeah but the USA is not a civilization. There's not a real "American culture". When I think "USA", the only things that come to mind are: junk food, guns, arrogance, Hollywood, fat people.
terioze9 and who made you the ultimate officianado on america?
there is this one thing you forgot...romans never forced anyone to convert to the roman religion, since romans took example from greeks in the roman religion, they could not force anyone to beleave since there would have been too many rebellions against the religion.also you forgot that after jews invented their religion, they never converted to any religion at all, they are the few who have maintained their religion no matter the cultural changes around them..
They would use anti-phalanx tactics as seen in the "Roman infantry tactics"
Since the roman legion is FAR more flexible and open to tactics than a macedonian phalanx, they have many ways to get over one.
The legions also drilled and trained together over a more extended time, and were more uniform and streamlined.
Even less than brilliant commanders could win with a roman army.
Sure they did bad things but rome isn't the only empire that did that at that time, the parthaisn would burn all towns down to deprive the romans and armenians of resources, the egyptians had thousands of slaves, and while most of rome's actions cant be justified they did serve the message of what happens if you defy the power of rome. I mean after their crucifictin of the slave after spartacus there were no longer any rebellion, when they burned carthage there was few challenges to rome
you seem to know a lot about the roman empire
but as a person who knows greatly about this empire, you should know that most of its actions are not justified, and are considered immoral, even back then, when "wars and killing were acceptable".
i agree that every empire and state must make hard decisions for the greater good of its people- but rome is most known for making those choices hesitation and without considering the consequences it has on other populations.
Gladiator is a movie... Also sure slavery was bad, but at that time what nation didnt have slaves? Even the germanic tribes had slaves, parthians had slaves, and in case of the bible it is full of mistakes and the fact that people even use it as a source is baffling. And what ottomans? They only came up during the end of the eastern empire and by then the east had been bled dry after frequent wars with the muslim world
What book isn't written by men, and when regarding historical facts is completely accurate?
at No2. oh- only one genocide? well thats okay then.
i guess the ottomans are okay too right? i mean, c'mon, its only the armenians.
anyways, the roman empire was a brutal empire- by any standard.
if its because of slavery, or caesars like caligula or nero.
this empire is known thanks to its brutality, because without its brutality it could have never conquered most of the known world.
watch gladiator!
uh no they didnt, The romans allowed them to practice whatever they wanted up until the first rebellion when they rebleed because of taxes, the end of the rebeliion being the burning of the temple of jeuraselm and the romans sacking the city and using its riches to fund the flavian amphitheater, the second revolt called the kitos war was caused by greek and jewish religious tensions and roman taxation once again, the third was in result to the romans buildinga temple to jupiter in jeuraslem
Jews only rebelled when they were forced to convert their religion.
when Alexander counquered israel, he didnt force the jews to convert, and only after he died and after the "war of the succesors", when his sons forced the jews to convert their religion, they started to rebel. the romans at first were allies with the jews only to win vs the greeks, but soon after the won, they too forced the jews to convert, so be more accurate, you are saying untrue things against entire populations
Both of your comments are highly anachronistic. That means you are viewing history with a modern perspective. This is never a good thing because you end up imposing modern morals and ideals on a world that was not governed by the same ideals. The world of the Romans was governed by military prowess, honor, loyalty, and practicality. Also you have to realize that where the Romans went and conquered, they took their innovations with them. Their medicine alone was the most advanced of the time.
Even if the Romans didn't overextend themselves an stayed in Italy south Gaul Spain and Carthage, while political stability, the one thing the Romans were notoriously ill disciplined in, may have been more possible with a republic or principate, the waves of migration from the east would have descended on Italy eventually and the Romans would be able to stop it even if the legions were all italian
comments made me realize that lots of people have really simplistic views of history. romans loved all things greek, they never hid it and never claimed anything from other cultures as theirs, instead they adopted many aspects and that was their strength. they had their own original culture and made many innovations by themselves (concrete, domes, vaults, amphitheatres...) and they had a republic (established in 509 BC) one year before democracy in Athens (508 BC), so they didn't copy it either.
the bureaucracy and "politicians" of rome were instrumental in maintaining order and cohesion amongst an ethically diverse and geographically divided population. when that bureaucracy collapsed taxes could no longer be raised, trade links could no longer be maintained and the army could no longer be paid. even the barbarian "invaders" wanted the empire to continue and to be accepted as roman citizens but without taxes and bureaucracy and politicians you can't have order and civilization
Actually chainmail is more difficult to produce than the lorica segmentata. The entire process takes longer to forge that is why it would be more expensive. Historians and modern blacksmiths confirmed this. The lorica segmentata was in use for a much shorter period of time. Trajans column depict soldiers wearing both hamata and segmentata armors, the issue is how do we know for certain that ONLY auxilia used chain mail, and ONLY legionaries used the segmented armor? Which source tells us this?
furthermore, an army of greeks vs. the legion, the legion slaughters them, this is not just my bet but what what happened historically, the Romans did control Greece after all. 1 vs. 1 is hard to say, but i'd favor the greek, spartans were trained heavily in individual combat and single combat against groops of enemies, also the legionary depends on his fellow legionaries to guard his flank, legionaries are also heavier more static soilders, the hopilite could flank, move around and has reach
they fell to politicians, a large plague (killing about 1/4th of their population), a large number of people died from a famine due to very poor crop conditions during its last years, the spread of Christianity also ate away at the Roman cultural identity, add to that a perfect storm of several large invasions of forign peoples (visigoths, ect.), and a large quantity of deaths due to lead poisoning which was used in roman plumbing, a practice that expanded in those later years, no wonder it fell
ok, I just gotta say this. Believe it or not, The Roman conquered the Greeks. Plus the Greeks and Romans had differing views on 1v1 combat. The Roman tried to avoid it as much as possible, with good reason the early Roman were besieged by many different enemies including the Greeks and various Italic tribes so they learned about strength in number early on. The Spartans on the other hand were used to the more 1v1 approach but still relied on a group as much as the Roman overall. I say tie
I disagree the downfall of the Romans had 3 main reasons:1. Not enough slaves( a very inportant resourse back than, even more important then money, food or lifestock).2 The fact that the most powerfull characters back then always fought against each other. 3. The endless cival wars. Politicians back then were important but the didn't always had a lot of infuence ( Cicero is a exception he was a very powerful figure)
By the degree of physical training spartan goes throughout his lifetime, physical prowess definately goes to spartans. But Romans were more sophisticated soldiers so warfare techninians goes the romans. Conclusion: On the battlefield 1v1 romans will win but that is only due to the fact that the roman is equipped with a gladius. 1v1 no conventional weapons a spartan will kick and tbag a roman.
Rome really didn't want to conquer Germany or anything more eastern, Caeser himself marched his troops across the rhine (something the locals had thought to of been impossible) and then marched them right back across the rhine, effectively showing the germanic tribes that rome could conquer them if they wanted too. The Roman Empire had more land then it needed by the time it peaked, I do agree that roman had the military ability to do so, but just because they did doesnt mean they needed too
Honestly I think they could've made the world a better place if they were to rule. Way ahead of their time in architecture and innovative constructions such as aqueducts and public entertainment.
Not saying I really liked their way of ruling, but they had developed lots of great ideas way ahead of their time, even though they could be barbaric in both punishment and discipline. Their ways were still under influence of war and conquest like all others at the time.
bro I haven't heard of that :( , it could be sarcasm about spartans at the back , if you know this logo from their shield ---> /\ (the upside down V) it has a meaning , the top were 10,1000 men (as far as I remember) they are equal , the highest people in Sparta they we're the elites , and they are at the front , the weak must learn & watch. it must be a joke bro, it's impossible for spartans to be at the back, they also didn't join the campaign of Alexander because of pride, they want to lead.
The Elites in the Roman army (1st Century) are at the back, While in the other hand the Greek's Elite were in the front, The Spartans are in command , and we all know their pride is higher than Mt. Everest . They're so eager / too excited to fight because they weren't able to join the battle of Marathon, and The Greek generals/leaders are always in the front (of course Leonidas is a Sparta) which makes the Spartan in the front , same with Alexander
not all the info you can in the internet are correct, I always read books about the Greeks , watch Documentaries and research in the internet. And I compare each one of them. Your teacher didn't even knew about that and didn't correct you ( I think , because I don't know who your teacher/professor is I don't have the rights to judge him/her) Like what I've said the Spartans were in the front because they we're the elite & want to demo a perfect Phalanx to the other Greeks :)
NO ! where did you got that info ?! the spartans were in the front because they want to demonstrate a perfect phalanx to the other greeks , like ... Spartans : HEY GUYS ! This is how PHALANX really works ! or Let the pro do all the work , The Spartans are in command & leads the land army in thermopylae , they at the front , Greek generals are always at the front unlike Romans or Carthaginians
No , not just history channel I do read books as well, I know the Legion's (reform) on how they fight a phalanx, Spartans are weaker by the time Romans conquers greece, and you're wrong about when the Romans vs Phalanx (1st battle) romans are being slaughtered , they got lucky & saw an opening which destroyed the phalanx & the general wasn't good like Alexander. The Spartans before are more disciplined that's why the 300 (the one who fought the persians) are famous because that's their prime.
History channel isn't a good source. Have you seen their portrayal of legions? I'll tell you this the phanlanx was only good if it was a veteran army, had a general who knew how to use it. And your point doesn't work due to the fact that by the time the legions rolled into Greece the phanlanx was at its newest form which was better than before. Sacred Band, rome beat, spartans were over-hyped, It was good at its time but by the time the legions came. It was outdated and useless.
the Phalanx before are weaker , lacked discipline (compare to the previous ones) and yes Rome did improved and managed to beat the other armies that uses Phalanx , but I'm talking about the previous ones , The Spartans , Theban Sacred bands , Phalangites that Romans cannot penetrate. and if you listen to history channel-national/discovery channel they'll say phalanx are "almost unbeatable in the front" means after the time of alexander they are weak.
When Alexander went to India and fought there. He sustained Casulties due to the elephant. The Elephant charged a path into the phalanx and then the indian came and mopped up. And no i do not underestimate light infantry. Rome VS Carthage was rome's heavy against the light soldier of carthage, same as their conquest of Gaul And the phalanx by the time of Rome's intervention was useless almost In later fight the romans found effective way of charging and beating a phalanx attacking from the front
Cont. Alexanders campaign's with the phalanx while impressive is over-glorified i mean light vs heavy infantry, or chariot/cavalry versus spears, the persian way of war was not really meant to fight a over heavy army. Also if you look later on once again the phalanx became almost obselete aginst the legion and their way of war and their tactics they developed. And if the romans were to have been in the battle of thermoplayae they would have won. Spartans were good but they had their weaknesses
Yes you're right about that however you must take into account that a phanlanx was very inflexible. Spartans were the best because they fought battles they knew they would win as to maintain the illusion of an unbeatable army. Also the phanlanx is overly gloriphied. I mean sure they conquered the persians against other heavy troops they were at a disadvantage. And if you also look later on. The romans developed several tactics against a head-on attack on a phalnax
Yes I did , I love both Roman & Greek history , If you pay attention the romans were beaten & push down the hill against the Macedonians ( 1st Phalanx fight vs romans) and then the general *forgot his name* noticed that the left wing are still organizing their lines, they took a risk , while the romans are being slaughtered at the right wing, and immediately the roman centurion noticed a gap & commanded the legionnaires to take advantage of the opportunity & they won by flanking not face to face
Sparta had stronger warriors & can definitely will massacre the roman legionnaires at the front (like what happened to the macedonians vs romans "1st phalanx vs legion fight) but the romans aren't stupid they'll outflank the spartans, they are also have the advantage of organization & equipment quality,as far as I know the greeks still uses Bronze while the romans uses Iron or steel by that time. The romans won't stand a chance against the sparatans in thermopylae but in open field they'll win
sorry if I bother you with my input, but I do think Jesus was a true person, however, the real person's identity long lost, which is why almost every region's picture of jesus is different, he has been constantly altered for the locals of an area to accept him more, which is why many religions (Ra of Egypt, and Dionysus of Greek myth) have a character with almost identical life traits (both characters spread peace, could walk on water, were crucified, and resurrected three days later).
aren't professional soldiers will most likely not have the equipment to deal with another man in close combat, nor have the skill to engage him hand-to-hand due to the professional legionary being trained in such skill. Also, the Roman's wouldn't just be melee infantry. They'll have their own skilled archers, artillery, and cavalry to deal with archers. And remember, they'll most likely have the advantage in numbers due to she sheer size of the empire.
true, but like you stated, A skilled archer. Not every archer in an army is going to be a skilled archer. Archery requires years of practice and when you need soldiers quickly, you're not going to spend years training the men. And even if you could get a group of skilled archers from people like hunters, you won't have that many to make a large difference. It's much faster to give a man a spear and teach him how to stab and stay behind his shield in formation. That, and archers who
true, but as I said before, a skilled archer could easily take out that formation, even if the soldiers where trained to fill in the gap, as you said, they are heavily armored, and heavy aremor means slower soldiers, the slower the soldier, the easier to shoot and find a way around them/ their armor. But as I have said before, I am not an expert in such things, just typing in what seems to be common sense to me.
Although I am not a military tactics or history expert, I know for a fact that the romans "tortoise" formations could easily be taken out by a skilled archer. Their formation was used for a horde of arrows coming with just basic aiming. Take out one of those soldiers, the rest of them behind that soldier would all trip or at least stuggle to get back into the formations, by that time, many romans would be dead.
@guitardestroyer77777
Umm u do know thar your beloved greeks destroyed Troy and slaughtered her people? But when rome whos very origin is from troy conquers greece you speak bad of Rome. And btw most emperors were good they brought stability and they slaughtered in mutinous districts (Judaea) after great revolts. Also maybe your greeks could've lives if they came together or followed the time. It was them that kept using the phanlax long after Rome learned how to counter it. Also maybe cartha
@Kiwis4life
I think the Romans took a lot from the Greeks during the early period of Roman history. Most of the Italian city states back then were heavily influenced by the Greeks (Etruscans, Latins etc.). The South of Italy was technically Magna Graecia and influenced the central parts of Italy to some degree.
Modern Greeks did descend from Greece within the Roman Empire but they had a sort of Greek and Roman co-existence whereby both cultures influenced each other.
@metalhealth1980 When i went to Roatan Honduras i found the people their are some of the nicest and friendliest people i have ever met. true the states doesnt parade its enemines throught the streets thats what the news papers are for, as for democrecy the romans had that two and emperours, as for slaves you did have slaves at one time just like rome, excepting different cultures ya right as long as they are white culters. and as for how rome being better just open a histroy book and read.
@gogoasacenusie
Wrong, we Americans do have history, culture, and identity. As an American, I have to say though that our history (short as is it is) is mostly not truly known thanks to political correctness, our culture (we are supposed to be a "melting pot") has turned into a pretty sorry group of people constantly bickering about everything, and our identity for most people is anything but American because they insist on hyphenating (WTF really is an "Irish-American"?). :-(
Sorry, but roman brittain was populated by celts, and romans defeated the scots in the battle of Mont Graupius, but Scotland was certainly not profitable for the romans and the price to pay to pacify the north was to high. That's why they retired first behind Antonin wall then behind the Hadrian wall. The picts were warlike and very hard to civilised, it wasn't worth to lose legions for an infertile land, same schema as some parts of germany which was just a wild forest. Sorry for my english
@iheimdall actually henry tudor was a direct descendant from owen ap tudor (which is why their last name is tudor) he had a son called edmund and he had a son called henry tudor, (all welsh bloodlines) and henry tudor was also born in pembroke castle, and grew up in raglan castle, i think you should try reading and using facts to back your statements you should read wales: history of a nation by david ross for example, your so called henry tudor the anglo saxon king doesn't exist, sorry :D
@iheimdall haha you know you do yourself no favours by showing everyone how bad your literacy is that you cannot complete a scentence without swearing. infact it makes you a troll, and oh no not the sheep shagging haha mate do you even know how that legend came about? plus cant you think of anything less origional, owain glyndwr was a famous welsh person never lost a battle routed many english armies and the welsh also invented the longbow and were the masters of its use look it up
@stygn The Romans did on occasions, withdraw some troops from Britain to fight wars on the continent. For example, the Roman Emperor Trajan withdrew some troops from Britain in the early 2nd Century AD for his conquest of Dacia. Marcus Aurelius withdrew troops to meet the threats posed by Germanic tribes on the Danube (late 2nd Century AD). In 410AD, the Goths sacked Rome and most of the provinces of the Western Roman Empire were overrun by Barbarian tribes.
first off all, i never said COPIED more like BASED
secondly i am not going to analyse such a big matter to u in 500 words :S go and read for yourself, an army isnt about numbers and battle tactics. and btw if u want to talk about a big matter with someone either both of u must know it perfectly or both of u must know nothing :) and u my friend from the things u say make it clear that u dont know about an army structure.
Who havent on pc? Plus you haev to get mods on that game to even make it realisic, I mean urban cohorts are better then praetorians? Urban Cohorts were glorified town watchers for rome who were used primarily against street gangs and violence and acting as a police force. Or berserkers that the germanic tribes had...
uh, no. the first rebellion started because of romas cruelty towards jews, AND greek and jews tensions, the taxes has lesser part in this.
so does the kitos war.
there was tension because the romans prefered the greeks over the jews.
and in the third rebellion- its exactly as i said, forcing paganism over the jews by building the temple for jupiter caused them to rebel.
Not being biased just stating the truth that the Roman legion is better than the Greek Phalanx. If you more explanation on how the Romans would defeat them is the front ranks would fix their shields against the Spartan spears while the back ranks would move in-between the gaps and cut down spears and Spartans alike
i wouldn't say that, since the Romans somewhat assimilated and or stole Greek culture and modified it and so they did spread the Euro civilization. And anyways the Greeks didn't even spread its influence that far into other continents unless you consider the Greeks teaching other country leaders like Alexander the Great
@Praetorian107
It wasn't meant to be offensive. IF it was taken as an offence then I apologise. iremember a certain Prime Minisster highlighting that the English were a mongrel group too. This is just expressing theunerstanding that there has been a lot of interaction and mixing with so many different cultures over time.
@Caleidus No offensive, but you should check the history. In China, at that time, was the Empire Qin (who bulit the Great Wall and Terracota Armay) and Empire Han. Even the Empire Han had a war with Roman troops, and they defeated roman troop. The prisoners stayed in China until now. There is still a Roman villiage in the Northeast of China.
@TheAfricanWarrior283 ok....but we are world champions poooopopopopoopoooopopoooooo....hahahahahahahhaahahahahah!!!!!!!!!
time is a large factor in what is acceptable maybe in 100 or 300 years things that we do on a daily basis like owning a pet isn't acceptable so back then there was really no murder what can you do you weren't alive and you can' change that complaining about it now won't change what happned.
Any examples? And don't use Carthage, While they might have destroyed carthage many of its inhabitants survied albeit as slaves and within 100 years many carthaginians would be prosporous roman people. heck they even made roman temples dedicated to carthaginian gods
Uh when did they do that? The romans were smart enough to know that doing them would alienate all thers, their annexatino of various nations were based on the fact that they pitted tribes against each other and the fact that they rewarded all tribes that allied with them
there is a huge misconception the roman legion fell because the legionaries began to become army engineers solely and relied entirely on the auxiliary troops for combat which lead to romes armies dissolving when barbarians invaded because the fighting troops would side with the enemy
To this day I can't understand how the auxiliaries used the hamata chain mail instead of the segmented armor. When both chain mail and scale armor was more expensive than segmented armor. Is this just a modern misconception, or were auxilia actually better equipped than the legionaires?