rgcotl said:
just an suggestion
first read something then speak
Romans survived not cause they was an super power of good soldiers but
1) cause they had unlimited man support, with no one nation could have at the time (population of Rome man power)
2) ability to adopt everything best from any nation they fought
3) diplomatic ability's
4) amount of gold with helped them survive in all the darkest hours
5) most of Romans victory's is just cause they fought unfair like
a) Romans are defeated they retreat and then they back when the enemy are not ready to fight back
b) Romans go to look for Ally's paying them some gold defeating the enemy they afraid so much and then defeating the ally who they just hired
it was just a smart politic
c) glory battles like you think Romans has was very rare
destroying factions is not the strength it is a weakness
"if i afraid something then i go to destroy it, isn't that mine weakness?"
Mate, I like you, you seem like a nice guy, but do not debate with me about the Romans. I have been studying them for well over a decade. Diplomatic ability? Are you serious? The Romans had fewer allies than anyone of their time. It is hard to be allies with people who despise your power and technological superiority. The only allied support they had was from client kingdoms in the form of specialist auxiliaries. Unlimited man support is complete and utter bull****. In 90% of Romes battles they were outnumbered, due to the fact that they were generally fighting multiple wars at a time and could only spare a few legions to fight on each front. I will give your point of them adopted others technology to you. They were very good at assimilating technology and ideas, that is how they survived. They evolved. They were adaptive. That is a necessity and the Romans knew it. Amount of gold? Their treasury was constantly under stress from economically developing assimilated countries, supporting hundreds of thousands of auxiliary cohorts to guard the borders and defend the people of the empire, and paying for the expeditionary legions to bring new lands into the empire. They were never particularly wealthy due to these expenditures. And the Romans rarely fought unfair, you might be confusing unfairness with tactics. Their legatae and tribunes studied military history and tactics profusely. They knew how to fight, as opposed to their foes. They knew to choose the battleground to your advantage, to take all environmental factors into account, to analyse every angle of a battle and an enemies options, and finally, to keep the enemy fooled and thinking contrary to what was reality. They used strategy, that's not unfair. Glory battles? I assume you mean great battles in Romes history. Well, there is the battles of Zama, Watling Street, Alesia, Axona, Sabis River, Vosges, Bibracte; (basically all of Gaius Julius Caesars battles, lol), Carthage, hell, even Teutoberg forest is recorded as being one of the most valiant stands in history. The Roman soldiers held against the ambushing Germanians for 48 hours, despite horrible and detrimental battle conditions and being outnumbered, along with their families being among them (this being a negative addition as the soldiers would lose discipline due to concern for their wives and childrens safety). And that's just to name a few
If you want me to go into detail on any of those great battles PM me and I'll inform you of the heroic deeds throughout them. Also, the Romans conquered because at their conception they were surrounded by aggressive neighbours who never ceased their attacks on the Romans. It was kill or be killed for them. And even considering that, they were very kind rulers. When they conquered a nation they let any occupants who didn't outright oppose them live in peace, gave them roads, gave them aqueducts, gave them housing, gave them technological advancements, gave them plumbing and infrastructure, gave them organized government, gave them military protection against tribal enemies, gave them public entertainment, gave them limited Roman citizenship priviledges (and after Hadrian, full citizenship) let them keep their religions, and, in some cases, let them keep their kings. All they asked for was unused land to cultivate and use to feed the inner populaces, and of course taxes to keep the army functional so they could defend their new citizens. When the Romans conquered a place they assimilated them into their empire, they became a piece in the puzzle, their culture melded with that of all the nations in the empire to form a hybrid, which was spread throughout the empire. They didn't force their culture onto anyone, or oppress them. The Roman empire wasn't one people oppressing others, true ancestral Roman blood was incredibly rare, even in the city of Rome. No, the Roman empire was a conglomerate of nations united under one banner. The population of a small town in Latium could not possibly occupy all of Europe, North Africa and plenty of Asia Minor, they assimilated those people and became one.
