[Another Ethnic Thread]

Those of us with northern European blood in us(Dutch here) were well aware who was what. As caucasions go we all new that the Italian boys were the most gifted in that area..we all new this...and I assume they had the most 'Roman" blood in them. (maybe not a good assumption..not sure)

 

While it may be your experience, I find the comments to be ludicrous.

 

Sometimes truthful comments are seemingly so.

[Where Is Every One From?]

From the land of 'mongrols'

 

You guys can keep the cheese and football. I'll take the olive oil skinned beauties.

Secon that

 

may I ask a Briton who has not visited the States -how large are your counties of "york" and "Lancaster" in physical size and population?

 

I could answer that for South Carolina... (Both near where I grew up in North Carolina)

 

York County, South Carolina

Lancaster County, South Carolina

 

If I am not mistakes the anient Romans made a fish gruel that they put on many things....seen it made on the BBC...the chef said it was most disgusting.

 

Are the Italian people really decendants of the ancient Romans or are they an extremely mixed people? Slaves from all over outnumbered Romans plus the army was made up of many different groups. Looking at phtos of ancient Romans it seems that modern Italians diidn`t look like them. (Romans didn`t seem so attractive)

[Another Ethnic Thread]

I imagine that the reasons for the Byzantine Emperor accepting their loyalty as his personal guard are exactly the same as why the Roman Emperors employed Germans into their own personal bodyguards. For one thing the soldiers had no local connections and were beholden to the emperor only. That is a good recipe for loyalty. Additionally they were true northern warriors, probably simpler men not use to the court politics and scheming which turn allies into enemies for a few coin. Their combat ability is beyond question, those northern warriors always being a strong and intimidating stock, just what you need for a personal guard which follows the emperor around but not necessarily filling the lines in a battle.

 

Why did they go? I figure the answer is as common to all opportunistic soldiers; money, easy life, battle and excitement. Who wants to settle down to England when you can fight for the dirty rich and live the high life?

I totally agree with the exception of nothern warriors being any better than any some others. Perhaps these were the only available? Think it was mostly because of their lack of poltical ambition. Finding this trait must ahve been an enormous task in either the western or eastern empire. I am quite sure Roman legionaires were much more effective if the poltical ambition aspects could have been nuetralized. Think the nothern warriors may have had more height on average but as Caesar noted they have very lttle endurance and look better than they actaully are. In the USA we have ethnic groups from all over the world but mainly Europe..most of us are mixed( myself 4 diiferent) but there are a few pure and in our parents day many pure. What I am getting at was some groups were athletically more gifted and were a tougher people. Those of us with northern European blood in us(Dutch here) were well aware who was what. As caucasions go we all new that the Italian boys were the most gifted in that area..we all new this...and I assume they had the most 'Roman" blood in them. (maybe not a good assumption..not sure)

[Romans: What Made Them Better Fighters ?]

Hmm, Gaius Marius seems to have had some Neanderthalic traits

 

Marius Bust

 

 

Heh, or Pompey:

 

http://nautarch.tamu.edu/class/489-502/Pompey.jpg

They didn`t look like the actors in the HBO'Rome' series but as you say looked like that belonged on the national geo channel. hmmm looking at Roman busts it seems that there is a huge diversity in appearances...very confusing.

[Romans: What Made Them Better Fighters ?]

Neanderthal was meant for humor, geneticists say there is not any trace in modern humans. Just wanted to create a theory..beacuse I just do not believe in superior training idea. In those times all peoples were trained to kill at a very early age and fight in groups. Just feel that the stronger and quicker wins here and yes the Romans were outnumbered by extreme numbers fighting in Europe.(somtimes 10 to one against the celts or Germans) Not so in Asia where the Romans had serious trouble. Parthians had the bow that originated in China that went strong for 400 meters. That plus their cavalry proved most fatal to the Romans. Just think that hand to hand is just that,plus there ability to win against great odds...albiet except against archers or cavalry just makes me wonder.

[Romans: What Made Them Better Fighters ?]

I'm sure they were stronger and faster, mostly because of training. They spent most of their time training, and were well cared for, giving them an advantage over a less well trained (and in some instances less healthy) army. There was, of course, the physical requirements to even be in the legion, which also gave them an edge.

 

I would not go as far to say that they were *always* outnumbered, I don't really know the battle figures...I do know that the Romans had recurve and composite bows which were incredibly powerful. A gladius is short, but anyone who know's how to use a short sword knows how to use it to advantage. Every weapon has a weakness and a strength, and in order to be effective the soldier must know his weapon's weaknesses and strengths. A short blade is actually ideal in close combat situations. A spear (which many of Rome's enemies used) is great for a distance, or for throwing, but once the opponent gets inside the range of the spear, it becomes useless. The shortsword rules on that battlefield.

 

Roman organization was supurb (in part due to extensive training) which is extremely effective on the battlefield when it can be maintained.

 

I don't really see the point of comparing Roman generals to Patton. Patton lived in a different time, fighting and leading men in very different situations than the Romans could ever face in their time. In my opinion, comparing a Roman to Patton is like comparing apples to oranges.

[Romans: What Made Them Better Fighters ?]

It seems the Roamn warrior had a physical advantage not theorized. Perhaps, just perhap they were so much stronger and quicker than other caucasians was their real strength. They were always outnumbered and their equipment was not superior(their bows especially) and the gladius being so short...this would require superior athletic skills to be sure. Their generals were not so brilliant compared to a Patton for example. It seems in hand to hand they were too effective regardless of training. In the ancient world all were trained to fight hand to hand at a very early age, so I feel Roman tactics were not the the answer. Looking at all their battles I have to conclude there was a physical advantage.... When they met superior archers or cavalry the Romans had much difficulty and perhaps their only real difficulty. Why? This nullified physical superiority. The Romans were not the tallest to be sure(5 ft 10 inch height rquirement) but either were neantherdals and modern humans wouldn`t last a minute against them without a weapon. I am just proposing a theory. Tear it apart if you will and I know the temptation will be great because it takes the Romance out of the legion.

[Romans Really Only Worthy Opponents Parthians?]

Can anyone explain a couple of questions I have. I am basically new to this but have read a bit. I ahve a theory..it may sound absurd but you never know. It seems that the Roman generals for the most part engaged enemies being severly out numbered and sometimes trapped. Intelligent gemerals would not allow this. They did have loyalty it seems for the most part. Looking from the outside after reading(Caesar to Vegetius) about thier conquests it seems that the writers alwys elevated the status of their enemies but ussauly anihilated them.(That means Roman wriers used much poetic license to elevate their troops: they inhilated people of great soldiers with enormous bravery...etc.) But an occasional slip up occurs...example when Caesar was fighting a German tribe he mentioned how cowardly they were....and his archers picked off some who tried to hide in trees and so many drowned in the Rhine while retreating. Conclusion: Roman writers did not tell the truth. Also, looking at this from the other side of the Atlantic the only real problems the Romans had was from the Parthians and Hannibal. Europeans seemingly were extremely incompetent against them..accept from an occasional trap. Remember the Romans were severely outnumbered in most battles in Europe with thin supply lines while the natives albetit Celts,Germans,Dacians, Iberians etc. had huge advantages. But and a big but....in Asia the Romans were the incomptent ones against the horse and bow. The Parthians did so much damage that it is incredible the Romans went on after so many large defeats to them. It seems that the best way to beat the Romans was avoid hand to hand combat,simple. ???