skel

i think some of yall are being a lil to critical of movies... most movies are generally good. they may not be spectacular, they may be corny at some parts, or some bad acting... but i mean, could you really do any better? i find lots of things wrong with all kinds of movies but i appreciate them all, expecially the hardwork that goes into it. keep in mind guys the budget has alot to dow ith how good a movie is! if they couldnt get a billion bucks it wont be as good as it could be!. but really i just hold a firm belif in most things, that if you cant do a better job you really have no right to treat it so harshly... just my opinion though...

as ive been readin the histories by herodotus, im noticing that alot of the dates in the book refering to greek events, corrospond with alot of roman dates, mainly that rome was supposedly founded in 700ish bc but alot of major greek events such as the uniting of them all nstuff and great wars that defined their peoples happend around the dates of the 500ish bc era. so my question really is i guess, when in romes history did they start adopting greek society and things? cuz the way i always thought of it was, rome came way after the greeks had been extremely civilized and educated. but really it seems as if the greeks werent really even a whole nation while the roman empire was building. also, i havent goten very far in herdotus yet, only book 4, but when is the greek nation that most people think of as the great enlightened society begin to take place? ive heard mention of it in the book as around the 500-400s bc? but it hasnt gon e into much detail yet...

weve all heard that saying... but my question is, how long did it actually take? what i mean is, when was the city first established and how long did it take them to actually build it up to what is generally shown as rome in all those crazy movies nstuff? know what im askin???

ursus that would be a good idea....

saw that in my newspaper this morning.. interesting...

alas.. i am kinda sorta canadian :'( oh well i learn to live with it!

im gonna have to say i have mixed feelings on this... on one hand, omg its a wonder of the world of course rebuild! do what ever you can to make it last forever! on the other, isnt it sort of the great mystery of it that also makes it one of the seven wonders? i mean, if it was still built today, yes it would have been architectual marvel from the times, but would it have been worthy of a Wonder?

magnus.. why do you say they hated beef? is it that they thought it was a barbaric food? ive heard the romans thought of beer as a barbaric drink.. but nothing about beef...?

well i assure you of one thing.. i would NOT have authentic roman music... have you ever heard it? OMG its aweful! im sure however there would be LOTS of wine, fruits, meats, id prolly have a pig or 2 on the table ( you know the whoole one with the apple ) it would be a blast, maybe someday i will actually get to host something like that at my own home!

so with my point in mind.. ROME WINS!!!!!!!!

anthro.. modern warfare is very similar to warfare through out history. ALOT of the methods, tactics, stratagies, etc. are used and incorperated in todays military. arguing this is pure idiocy... the only real difference in wars today is technology. also i still have yet to see anyone prove my lil theory wrong about the crossbowmen being dead bedfore they would ever be in range of the roman infintry... if you dont argue my point it will go to my head and make me think im smarter then all of you so argue with me!

taking offense to someone saying "damned picts" just cuz youe english is like taking offense for being called a damn gaul and living in france... or even being called a damn prussian and living in germany... kinda rediculous

nooooooooooo dont lock the thread! i forbid it!

Also (since i dont wanna edit that last post..) did someone say that the chinese did infact not have any sort of sheild? which basically means no way to protect themselves against roman auxilary? or do the chinese also have the magical italian armor? if the chinese have no way to defend against arrows how is it then that you expect them to fair well at all in any way against the roman archers? yes the romans didnt have the greatest archers in the world but i sure as heck would want a shield infront of me when go up against an archer of any nation. so take this into play and correct the mistakes the romans wold begin to advance the chinese would fire their cross bows at them, but being as they arent yet in range they do little damage... then since bows have a greater range (do they not?) the romans unleash a volley of arrows at the chinese and their crossbowmen damaging many, this process continues while the rest of the infintry advances by the time the infintry gets with in lethal range of the crossbows, how many can you honestly say will be left to do any sort of major damge to the legion after taking such a barrage of auxilary fire? because i assure you in a battle such as this the romans would amass a staggering amount of every soldier type they had. so in the end i believe the crossbowmen would infact get no chance to do damage to the roman army leaving it all up to the infintry and rendering the entire arguement of crossbows agsint roman sheilds USELESS! ahahahaahahah! (im just so sick of you all going back to the crossbows! )

dnewhous, so that you know, yes many armies banged on their shields before a battle, but where youre wrong is in saying that if it was a wooden shield it would not have resounded like an all iron one? this is very not true. when i am reenacting, the armies sometimes band on their shields and almost all of the 500+ fighters use wooden shields and it makes a VERY feirsome(sp?) sound... nic, yes hte "kekeke" is laughing, and its linked to absolute, complete, and utter immaturity... such imaturity that if you, the reader, were to take anything said with it seriously, then you would be considered by the one who wrote it a complete fool(not insulting you thats just how i take it to mean...) it comes from playing online computer games... the poeple who (im assuming) are coming over from the chinese forums are coming across to me, and im sure others on this bored, as hostile and with an "im right so go screw yourself" kinda attitude. if this is not their intent then for all of you, try to word your posts differently. if it is your intent then you all really need to get out more.

can i ask where you get those winning percent chances from? also i dont think anyone doubts the amount of damage that could be done with the chinese crossbow as its been stated in almost every single post ( and im kinda tired of hearing about is ) you also say that you belive the chinese are not good warriors but their range would destroy the romans anyways? well lets just assume that they arent good warriors (which even though im biased to rome i doubt the chinese are in anyways less effective as warriors...) why do you say that, the range alone would destroy the romans when, its my understanding, that the roman legion is a line fighting machine. that is what it is built for. i know from experience through reenactment that linefighting is a very close combat, very comfusing combat. with that knowledge can we assume that the romans would be able to destroy the chinese if they were able to get past the crossbows? also i wanted to ask you chinese forum gowers... what sort of protection did the chinese have against arrow fire? im sorry but every time i think of this post and try to invision the battle i picture japanese soldier/samurai, mostly becuase i know more about them then i do the chinese, and the only thing ive ever seen of chinese fighting is the fairytale like movies they make if the chinese dont use any form of shield (im sure they do i just dont know) then how can you honestly say that the roman auxilery wouldnt anhilate them right off the bat?

any one ever think of maybe a place on here to discuss all those epic movies we love so much? since theres a place to discuss roman/history books, why not a place to discuss roman/historic movies? just a thought...

ok seriously.. you guys from the chinese forums need to lighten up. you started this topic on a roman forum, we will be biased to a roman standpoint. if you cant handle it then dont post here. the "kekeke" is cuz im playin around something you obviously arent mature enough to handle with the internet man. my point was this, the one who said the hans lasted 400 years made it seem like it was a huge magnificant deal that it was infact 400 years. im actually pretty sure pople have been in europe just as long if not longer as people have been in the east asias due to the common belife that mankind migrated up from africa. that was kind of my point but "geez man" maybe you cant handel a nice friendly online convorsation on the note of the partian comment i made, i was simply saying that ZZT (who did infact seem WAY out of line with his post) made it seem as if the hans would attack the same was as the parthians did , hence cuasing a terrible defeat. all i was saying is that if thats how the hans would infact fight then since the romans are experienced with that form of attacking, they would have a better chance of defending against it. so chill all you china forum people. this is the internet... ps. "I don't think Rome is exactly known for there great minds." i belive that statment is proven false by almost every record in existance of roman people... Rome was where the briliants gathered my friend.

Did the legion ever attempt to imporve their tactics, gear, and styles after a certain defeat due to a specific factor? such as with the parthians and their arrows going right through the roman shields, did they ever attempt to make them stronger? or were they for some reason stubburn, keeping the same methods and equipment even though they knew it wasnt as effective?

the hans only lasted 400 years? how long did the romans last? kekekekekek also you say what would stop the hans from attacking the romans in the same ways that Parthians did? well im sure that since the romans have fought the parthains..after the first battle of the hans, seeing that they are fighting the same way, would devise tactics and strategies to counter... such as any good tactition would

i thought as a whole alexander was well done and rather realistic ( i suppose as much as a ancient war/battle could be from our knowledge...) the only problem i had with it was how much they played on his questionable sexual nature. i think its rediculous to make such a big deal out of it especially since my understanding is, that he just MIGHT have been homosexual, not that he was...which the movie made it seem as if he was.

i found a copy online that i downloaded, its not complete (only the first 20 pages or so of each book) but its giving me a really good insight to everything so far. im almost finished (sort of) with the 3rd book now. i will however be getting an actual copy of the book sometime soon i hope and thanks for your guys' input, i think ill try to get the oxford edition after reading the parts that i have because it has sidenotes, maps, and commentary that helps explain things for me

they just moved it to a different section...

the only problem is theres not enough people on the boards!!! i think the actual site for this place is amoung THE most useful and helpful ive ever seen in a site related to history

never mind, i found the answer to my question