Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums

Antiochus III

Equites
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    148

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Antiochus III

  2. Augustus, good or bad emperor?

    in Imperium Romanorum

    Posted

    Augustus is generally considered to be one of the greatest Roman leaders. I disagree. If one looks at Roman history in general, Roman power grew quickly and steadily from 298 B.C. until around the turn of the milennia, where, although it continued to grow, the number of provinces added slowed, and era of expansion waned. With Varus' defeat in Germania, Augustus decided to stop expanding at such a fast rate and fortify the Rhine, not wanting to take more caualties. Why? THe casualties were not neary as severe as those suffered at Cannae, or other battles. In the past, Romans used an event like that to mobilize even more troops, and expand a lot. I can see where Augustus would want to stop expansion for a short period of time, but a permanent end to expansion, and FORTIFYING the Rhine was very stupid. When, in history has fortifying anything ever worked? Hitler's fortress of Europe failed miserably, to give one major example. Also, not conquering Germania had two long term effects:

    1. The revenue gained from taking this region would have been immense. Look at what Caesar was able to pull from Gaul! The Romans would get the initial loot from raiding settlements, and then could have taxed the Germans into the ground for more profit. 2. Also, more population means more men to recruit, and less for the enemy. Later, Germania turned into a base for tribes to launch massive invasions against Rome. Taking Germania would have been great for Rome.

     

    Based on these obsevations, Augustus helped Rome fall. His ideas were idiotic, and although there was minor economic boom, he prevented an even bigger one. Also, his foreign policy allowed enemies to gain power, and prevent later Roman invasions from being successful. All in all, though Augustus' reign gives the illusion of being great, it really set the foundation for Rome's fall.

     

    Antiochus III

  3. Falx

    in Gloria Exercitus - 'Glory of the Army'

    Posted · Edited by Antiochus III

    Here is the difference between a scythe and falx wiht the scythe first.

     

    s

    ----s

    -------s

    ----------s - Blade

    -------s

    ----s

    s

    s

    s - Handle

    s

    s

     

     

     

    f

    ----f

    -------f - Blade

    ---------f

    ----------f

    -----------f

    ------------f

    ------------f

    ------------f

    ------------f

    ------------f - Handle

    ------------f

    ------------f

     

     

     

    I hope that explains the difference well. Don't mind the dashes, they are just placeholders, because this posting system is TERRIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     

     

    Antiochus III

  4. Falx

    in Gloria Exercitus - 'Glory of the Army'

    Posted

    The falx was fearsome indeed. The roman helmet structure actually changed as a result of it. They added a cross bar on the helmet. Can you even imagine the brutal casuallties this thing must have inflicted? A good falx would go right through a helmet and down to the nose. At the sight of that I would desert immediately. The training and discipline of legionaries always amazes me. Even the troops in the republican legion seemed to be hardened and well trained.

     

    Antiochus III

  7. Napoleons Retreat From Moscow

    in Historia in Universum

    Posted

    Hitler, however, had his troops divided into three major groups, Army Group North(AGN), Army Group South (AGS), and Army Group Central (AGC). Only AGC was actually going for Moscow. That being said, the number of men under Napoleon and hitler were relatively similar-600,000 for Napoleon, about a million for Hitler. Also, Napoleon's troops actually occupied Moscow, while the Germans never did. Napoleon's force took casualties consistently throughout his campaign, while Hitler inflicted unbelievably huge defeats on the red army in the beginning while taking relativle few casualties(look at Kiev-600,000 russians killed or captured. Did I see that number somewhere else?). It wasn't until later on when major battles like kursk(largest tank battle in history) went the way of the russians. Part of the reason for that is because of Stalin letting his commanders retreat, so as not to be surrounded, unlike early on. Also, there were some other major differences in the two campaigns. Napoleon had to move much slower though Russia than hitler's panzer divisions did.

    To add to that, German forces swept across all of th ussr, not just a skinny strip like napoleon. That may seem like it doesn't matter-just the decisive battles make the difference right?-however, it was easier for hitler to protect supply lines, and bring reinforcements, which in turn made it easier to bring around flankers and such. This idea also helped the Romans use their discipline to win battles even though they were outnumbered. As you look at it in more depth, there are many differences between the two campaigns, and not too many similarities.

     

    Antiochus III

  10. Most Influential Historical Leader

    in Historia in Universum

    Posted

    Well, there really is so much that these people have changed and ideas that changed as a result of them that it is difficult to compare them. Hitler, however, did influence our modern world and ideas and governments that exist. However, Mussolini is being over looked, since he had some influence on what ideas Hitler helped spread. Pretty much any idea about these leaders can be justified.

     

    Antiochus III

  13. Most Influential Historical Leader

    in Historia in Universum

    Posted

    I think people are voting wihtout really thinking. It is important to think about what would have been different had the person not done what they did. Also, is the modern scientific/political world affected by their actions? For example, do we use a language that they helped become more infuential? Does our culture/religion have roots in their civililzation? Based on this, I decided that Scipio Africanus and William the Conquerer were good choices, though they have no votes. Scipio may not seem like he shouldn't be among the others at first, but think about it: wihtout him, Hannibal would have beaten Rome. Think about the consequences of that. Without Africanus there would be no Caesar, or Augustus. Carthage was the one and only equal (relatively) enemy that Rome fought against for hundreds of years. With Carthage as a victor in the Second Punic War, not only would our language be different, but it is possible that Christianity may not have been founded/spread like it did. Carthage was a Semitic civilization, and though we know little about the intricate aspects of it, it is obviously that its military system, language, and such were very different from Rome. What would have happened if it had become the dominant power in Europe? The whole world was changed by the Europeans, so indirectly everybody has been influenced by the Romans, so why wouldn't Carthage have had that same effect?

    Obviously, without a William the Conquerer there wouldn't have been an England as we know it. And isn't most of the world affected by England, the USA, and the English Language? Think of what would be different if the Anglo-Saxons drove away William the Conquerer.

     

    Antiochus III :ph34r:

     

    P.S. Want to read a good book? Check out The Battle that Stopped Rome

  14. 100 most influential people in history

    in Historia in Universum

    Posted · Edited by Antiochus III

    good: Zoroaster, Pizarro, simon bolivar

     

    Need: Antiochus the Great, Suleiman the magnificent

     

    Questionable: louis Pasteur that high? Seriously we'd be just fine wihtount the pasteurization process. i drink non-pasteurized stuff all the time. SHAKESPEARE? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU!!!!!!!!!!!??????????? :rolleyes:

     

    Antiochus III

×
×
  • Create New...