Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums

votadini

Plebes
  • Posts

    96
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by votadini

  1. Then are you saying, Moonlapse, that the US KNEW there were no WMDs when they went into Iraq?

     

    IMO it doesn't matter really if the US government knew there were WMDs or not, that's not why they invaded anyway.

  2. According to Wikipedia

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals#IIII_or_IV.3F

     

    'The notation of Roman numerals has varied through the centuries. Originally, it was common to use IIII to represent "four", because IV represented the pagan god Jupiter. The subtractive notation (which uses IV instead of IIII) has become universally used only in modern times. For example, Forme of Cury, a manuscript from 1390, uses IX for "nine", but IIII for "four". Another document in the same manuscript, from 1381, uses IV and IX. A third document in the same manuscript uses both IIII and IV, and IX. Constructions such as IIIII for "five", IIX for "eight" or VV for "ten" have also been discovered. Subtractive notation arose from regular Latin usage: the number "18" was duodeviginti or

  3. Thank the Lord for your post.

    My God, and I don't hear anyone saying that the EU would collapse. Nothing but the US is gonna gonna gonna...

     

    EU collapse? Didn't realize it had risen and done anything more than argue over fishing quotas, Chinese imports, and the shape of bananas :)

  4. Ok maybe parthia and han china were not the same but they used horsearchers/archers,all im saying is the han china of warfare is very different of romes.And parthia is more like han chian than rome.

    rameses great,parthia and han china have a lot in common,they both favored maneuvability and archers over heavy infantry, so i dont no what you are trying to say,han china was based around horsearcher,crossbowman,archers,parthia was based around archers and horsearchers and heavily armed horseman.Very much the same no?

    or very different of romes.

     

    There was little emphasis, in Han China, on heavy armoured infantry and more emphasis on archers (and of course, due to Sun Tzu a general objective of victory without battle), but that doesn't necessarily make it like the Parthians. Rome's military was not like Classical Greece's, although both emphasized heavy infantry.

  5. Wouldn't it be much the same for most every province where legions were stationed?

     

    To certain degrees, but Spain, for instance, provided the Empire with vast amounts of gold.

    I just tend to think that the 'British', despite being occupied (initially) gained more than the Empire as a whole did; relative peace (compared to earlier periods of Catuvellauni expansion, &c) and economic benefits from the proto-EU.

  6. Now, I am an American. Proud of it. However, I am also a devout realist. I think it's sad our kids can name 10 pop stars before 10 presidents in ANY ORDER. We're lazy, even myself at times. On top of everything else, our leaders (heh..leaders) fail us, and we do nothing.

    Oh well..I can always buy a bike and move to London ;)

     

    If you think kids in London are any brighter and politicians more effective, you're going to be sorely disappointed on this this side of the pond :( . But at least we're closer to Roman ruins :D

  7. This topic will probably always be the subject of debate. The red tunics you see were more than likely popularized by Hollywood, and it's amazing how often movies make it into historical texts. It's possible that red tunics were worn, and I suspect some were, but the basic soldiery probably wore a rough "off white" tunic (the color of unbleached cloth). Red fades, and is difficult to keep looking nice, for one thing. Red dye was also very expensive.

    It's been speculated that the other colors of tunics belonged to different groups; ie blue for the navy/marines, etc.

     

    Thanks. All makes sense (at least till someone else makes me look dumb :D ).

×
×
  • Create New...