Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About rvmaximus

  • Rank
  1. Everything before the "and" made sense, so I'll address that (is English not your first language?) Abolishing the politician general would have been a great reform. Generals make lousy politicians, and politicians seldom make decent generals. Still, I don't see how this reform could have worked in the Roman context. Spanish
  2. Most scholars do state that the legions weaknesses were their cavalry to be sure and they recruited the Celt/Germans in large numbers to help correct this flaw. However...perhaps just perhaps the Celts would have stopped the Romans or even ended their empire? Also,we know the German tribes wanted to come to to richer warmer Roman lands many times and repulsed. I do not think they used their superior cavalry the Hanibal did for example. Feel the Celts and Germanics fought the Romans to often into Roman strength..thier infantry. How foolish.
  3. rvmaximus

    What's Up With That?!

    Think the Romans had many lightning wins against the Celts and Germanics while they were alwys outnumbered it seems in foreign terain. I do not think they were so much better trained as many feel over the Celts or Germanics. These groups have a training system for the soldieer too...from just about after birth they learn to fight and more orgainized than many previously thought. Also, their weaponry may have been at least as good as the Romans. Celt(Germanic could be too)chain mail..etc. and metal making skills(harder blades) led the Romans to copy much from them. Plus we know their cavalry was superior to the Romans,that is why the Romans used them later in their legions.
  4. What amazes me of the Dacians is that they held on to their terratory between the Celts/Germanic/Scythians( or whatever you call them) besides the Romans! This seems like an amazing task to me. I read about their battles against some of these groups but much is sketchy so you have to just use reasonable analysis. Their land was fairly prized..do not think it was nearly as cold as Germania or Baltics and was in the Greek sphere of influence( riches), so many tried but many failed including the Romans many times. Romans feared their weaponry as we know(falx,etc.) but I cannot believe what the Romans write about their enemies(they put them all on a pedestal) but I have to imagine the Romans coveted this land too. So maybe their stories were not so far off. Anyone know much about their battles aginst the other groups,we all know about the Roman battles. Just seems to me the Dacians had the misfortune to be located where they were.
  5. Can you imagine if Roman generals were not polticians and became military leaders ability? I think many losses would not have occured such as Crassus in Persia...etc. Also, civil wars between each other would have ceased. These civil wars have to had a huge drain on Roman might that many overlook. Some experts say Rome's largest losses have occured from other Romans. Of course I am skeptical of the numbers they claim, just seems to me the losses are too large for the day. Rome after all was just a small city state with a few satelite tribes,until they recruited the Gauls and Germanics. But the civil wars did not include many of the new comers at the time I understand. So many puzzeles concerning the Romans that the more you read the more questions you have.
  6. rvmaximus


    Think the Romans would have left Massada if it was not of economic value. Judea brought much wealth to the Romans.
  7. Roman writers seem to me always using poetic license and politics in all their writings and with a mix of Greek mythology. I prefer writing of soldiers even Caesar but even his has enormous politics behind this. Always elevating their enemies into mythical proportions and doing what ever they can to justify their wars. This way after they deafeat their enemy they can elavate their deeds even more so. So writers works of the day should be read with many doubts instead just analyze what the results were. Sort of like what I do with writers today I guess.
  8. Can anyone tell me why the Roman legions that went by way of the North Sea after they went into Germania and crush German tribes after theirTuetonberg forrest ambush( or traitors)? I read somewhere on the way back these legions went down in the North Sea. Confused..wouldn`t that be an awfully long route?
  9. Wy didnt the Romans adopt the falx to be part of their legions? The falx must have been known for along time since the Dacians are a nothern Thracian people and were in the Greek sphere of influence most likely.
  10. Didn`t Britain offer the Romans much agricultural wealth which was paramount in the times. Roman traders had to be aware of much outside of the empire because of their never ending desire for wealth and things they do not have. Do not think they cared who they went against as long as they had what the Romans wanted. They probably had a lot of knowledge first..especailly about the land and weather. So far north as Britain was to them they had to wonder if the climate can support good agriculture at the time. (ocean current warm Britain realtive to other nothern lands)
  11. I think the Romans didn`t have enough 'good quality'cavalry of their own..why..perhaps they thought it was too expensive(it is) to maintain in italia area and perhaps the Roman soldiers pshyche. They felt like their infantry and their ability for hand to hand was second to none. Think most battles prove this out ,even against Hannabal. So what we have here is arrgant ego similar to the armored knights had against the crossbow. There is no way infantry(even Roman) could beat a superior cavalry with good leadership.( Not hitting them head on for example) Perhaps the Roman empire would have been the Celtic empire if the Celts deployed thgeir superior cavalry in a more intelligent fashion. I feel they would not have been able to defeat the Celts if this occured...but the Celts had to show their bravery and fight the Romans hand to hand.... Also, the Romans used the superior German cavalry to help against the Celts too(later stages)...Two against one,after all their really were not that many Romans in terms of numbers. Gallic cavalry kept the Germanic tribes from entering their lands for a long time until the Romans tilted the balance. It seems to me that the Germanic cavalry was very essential to the Romans..why? Infantry outdated against a good cavalry.
  12. rvmaximus

    Racism In Rome

    Yes, Herman did inflict a major defeat on Augustan Rome, before he was killed by his own people shortly after being soundly defeated by a Roman force under Germanicus in 14AD. The Romans had great respect for Germanic fighting prowess and physical strength, that's why they started employing them so often in their legions. That's why Roman Emperors used German bodyguards. Rome did not conquer because they hated northern Europeans. If this was the case why did they let so many Gauls and Spanish Celts into the Senate.....indeed, why did they elevate some to the highest office ? (Trajan). One question for you - Were Germanic incursions accross the Rhine into Gaul prior to Roman Occupation, and the rapes, murders etc that those Germanic invaders inflicted on Gallic peoples racially based ? The Germanics were stopped cold be the the Celts for a long time. The Geramiics lived in a harsh cold land..Celts in a much better place that the Germans coveted. Also..am not sure of the Romans complexion...seemed that there was a huge diversity. German bodygaurds were used by the late emporors so that they would not go the way of Caesar. Poltics was not high on the German soldires list as the Romans. As for fighting prowess..debatable..Caesar thought very little of the prowess of the Celts or Germans. He had an easy time of it gieven how he was so outnumberd by both. Crossing the Rhine also while not being attcked(and marching around for days) showed and amazing amountnof confidence..since he estimated that the German forces were many times large that the Celtic. Plus the toughest of Germanics were in the are of Belgae(most German sfeared them the most)...they became Romans one way or another. Some Roman writers used poetic lisence to build up their enemies. But the Roman soldier for the most part was easily the best ar the inafntry level.(hand to hand) Caesars dream before his death was to conquer Parthia..the real heel in the Roman side. Pacify the Gerams so they would stop their attacks..and to free up legions to ga after the riches of the east. Germania offered the Romans littlle and Roame offered the Germans much. (better bland,culure and weather....) Roman cavalry was inferior to most..including Celts ,Germans..so that is why they were so recruited. But all wee inferior to the Parthians who really made the Roman infanntry obsolete. Perhaps Caesar would have found his death there..one that I am sure he would rather.
  13. Many Europeans can clain rights to Roman antquity..not just Italy. The fact reamins that the great majority of ancient Romans were not from the indigineus latin tribes. So why not claim artificts to be European and the EU to something for security and research. Ancient Rome is a Eurpopean thing...not an Italian thing.
  14. Yes there is no "I" only an M and E :bag: Don`t know Italian but I heard their is an 'I' in the Italian word for team.lol.
  15. I agree that it is hard to make valid comparisons between Pyrrhus and Alexander. One thing is clear, Pyrrhus faced a much more reslient opponenet. Pyrrhus did not have much success with his cavalry against the Romans. Was this because his cavalry force was inferior to Alexander's, or was he facing a much more tenacious opponent than any that Alexander ever encountered? In the Battle of Heraclea, Pyrrhus attempted the Alexandr-style cavalry charge, but he was driven back. The Roman cavalry held their own quite well. Somewhat perplexing when you consider that the Romans were not known for their cavalry. He was only able to make a difference when he brought forth his elephants. The obvious question is what would Alexander have done differently. Would his cavalry charge have been any better? Would he have been able to exploit any weaknesses in the Roman lines? Were the Romans too disciplined to allow themselves to be broken up by a cavalry charge? Of course Alexander at that time could have easliy defeated the Romans...they had a superior fighting force with an amazing General....The Romans were barely handling the Samnites at that time. But the riches were not there. But could he have marched through Britain and east through Russia. Proabbly if the weather permitted. At that time the north was a poor place to live because climate was not conquerd as it is today. They march by foot...they would not have coped with a Geramn winter nor would they want to. As others mentioned the Germanics were not that good fighters but looked good in show, perhps taller with nice furs and long swordes. As others ahave mentioned they of course wanted the warmer climate too! Many died trying. The Roman legions handled them for along time so easily. Alexnader would have little problems too. But history....