Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums

Galba

Plebes
  • Content Count

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Galba

  1. Galba

    How did they clean themselves?

    I don't think any soap was ever made from olive oil alone. To make it into a soap....... I agree with you on the most part, but the fact is that most soaps are really made outoff Olive oil(Fat) and yes with other chmechals too...But if the olive oil itself is such a big part from the soap it must have some cleaning proparties. And I will do some testing of my own on this matter, results will be published soon !
  2. Galba

    How did they clean themselves?

    Yes most romans did use olive oil and will tell you a little secret too.. It works ! A lot if not most of good old hard soap is made from olive oil, a lot of the "organic soaps" in Israel are made from olives. This idea was borrowed from the ancient Egyptians (who in their turn borrowed it from the Babylonians). Any way ,I think that the olive oil had soap like affect in the cleaning of the body.
  3. Galba

    All time favorite book

    The first two volumes were really thrilling but the later books of that series are not that good anymore. I'll have to agree with you on that one, sometime she puts too much emphasize on the scribing the atmosphere and characters that she forgets about the plot sequence. Although I also enjoyed the last book in the series Antony and Cleopatra.
  4. Galba

    All time favorite book

    I don't believe it ! No one has mentioned The First Man in Rome by Colleen McCullough from her series Masters of Rome Her historical characters are very detailed an vivaed.
  5. Rome first choice, When you don't have internet or t.v. the only good entertainment is politics. But for summer vacations probably Caesarea Maritima
  6. Galba

    Rome total war & barbarian invasion

    I love this game !, in my opinion he is one of the best that total war can offer and I know ! I played them all. I played all the levels with all the factions and won everywhere....you just need to chose each time a completely knew strategy and tactics for the battle. Personally I always favor the romans but its just too easy with them, with their super versatile units thats almost good against anything that the over factions can offer. Interesting to play are the Seleucid Empire on Expert level. 1) they don't have any special good units in the start of the game. 2)city's that are too spread out and hard to defend. 3)Surrounded from all directions by strong factions with mobile units which you lack. EAST: Armenians and Parthinians NORTH Pontus SOUTH Egypt EAST Greece and if that is not enough after you finish all of them usually you have a strong roman Julii and Brutii that by that time conquer all of Greece eastern Europe France and Spain.
  7. Sarmatian cavalry, the only thing that saved from being torn to shreds by the barbarian hordes in Rome Total War : Barbarian Invasion. This thing cuts through infantry like butter. I can assure you that if was in charge, I would saved the empire !
  8. They did not had a plum at list most of them, most Roman oriented units at that time if was at all (most of them where barbarian mercenaries that wear what ever they felt like) had very simple uniforms. Also their armor changed from plate armor that was in the early empire to mail armor.
  9. Galba

    Roman Civil Wars

    I think that the Battle of Philippi was one of the best Civil battles that the Roman empire had to offer. It had everything Drama Action. Both sides had almost the same army by size and experience. And for me always stay a mystery Gaius Cassius death, I mean he was relatively talented general and Antony didn't crushed his army only repulsed it. I know most historians claim that because of the retreat and dust and blunder he thought the the cause is lost and committed suicide. But one most doubt that an experienced general had to have much stronger guts. and not to disper at the slightest defeat. Maybe if he didn't die and leave the inexperienced Brutus to handle alone such a massive army the Rebels had a good chance against the second triumvir.
  10. Oh yes, I also read somewhere Its a shame that they didn't have our modern methods of preservation and this interesting "Freeze" of history is lost.
  11. Not as Impressive as one would expect. But still mysterious none the less...
  12. Galba

    New Roman History Books (April 2010)

    My all time favorite (And in my opinion always needs to be on the top of the list) is The First Man in Rome by Colleen McCullough.
  13. That's a ridiculous statement. No one here is trying to glorify Islam. Yes, you are right. I meant by "Muslim" the Arab empire and the different kingdoms that it split into from the periods (650-1400). And I firmly believe that if the Byzantine weren't so exhausted from their Wars with the Sassanid Empire from (602-628) they would have stooped the Arab expansion in it's tracks. In real life the only solution to stop the Arabs is if the Byzantine had a brilliant general at that time that could have used the limited resources and win, but unfortunately for them they didn't have one at that time.
  14. People people I find always amusing the way people like to glorify the Muslims at that time. Lets start that the Muslims weren't that scientifically progressed compared to the Roman empire before it's demise. they were merely copycats. Who had enough Brain to translate and absorb all the ideas that they conquered. All of "their" ideas are merely Greek and Sassanid inventions that they took from the territory's they conquered something that the Europeans failed to do. Just a little example of that is the numbers that we use today "1,2,3,4,5,6..." called Arab numbers which are actually were invented by the Indus. So why are they called the Arab numbers??? well because the Europe didn't had a connection to India but the Arabs did. So they just took some good Ideas from the Chinese (which they had also a border with) some from Europe Some from India and some they just "inhered" from the Empires they Destroyed. Oh and about Christians converting to Islam because of Orthodox oppression please ! I agree there was some, but that wasn't the reason for the "conversation of Christians into Islam". I don't really want to get into this but her are some interesting facts. In Persia where most of the population was Zoroastrians was forced gradually and by laws and persecution to convert or die. and if you don't believe me read it yourself. Persecution of Zoroastrians Need more proof ?! well what about Egypt one of the cradles of Christianity. A quot from Wikipedia. This passage reminds me of something familiar, a yes Europe. Hope didn't offend anyone...I'm saying that other religions have clean hands, but lets be honest here The Decline of Eastern Christianity wasn't due to it's ideological problems but because they just lost the war (Byzantine) and that was for 3 major reasons 1) Bad Generals 2) Low moral 3) low resources. and all because of a 40 year war with the Sassanid empire which exhausted both empires and permitted the rise of the Muslim Empire.
  15. Well it's hard to answer because on the one hand, Christianity and Judaism in their early stages were pretty violent especially when they reached positions of powers. like Judaism in the land of knahan or later Christianity in the western world. examples are : attacking and conquering knhan because of gods will, and Christians forcing all pagans to convert sometimes forcibly and the Inquisition. (P.S. notice that i didn't mentioned the Crusades, I don't see it as aggression because of religious intolerance but because these land didn't belonged to the Arabs from first place it was a Part of the Byzantine empire which was Christian. and sure a lot can say it was Jewish before them and kanhanian even earlier but when the Arabs conquered it the most significant population was Christian). So point is that maybe it was because these religions were new but a lot of the reasons for this aggressions was just common place at those periods and time. Back them it was eat or be eaten today when most of the world is in favor of religious tolerance. like Buddhism and Christianity. I don't see any reason for any other religion to act so aggressive unless it has some other agenda which is not survival.
  16. Reading this article brings only one rude word to mind. This is not about history ! It's about Apologists Propaganda , that tries to suggest that Christians are no better then Muslim extremists. That under other circumstances we would be like them or they would be like us. But this is not true. I agree that a lot of the ruling religions today started very violently, but they gradually developed into more humane and tolerant forms of religion that favor tolerance and peace. But some religions staid the same from the period they started without any strong changes.
  17. All true ! I agree with with all what you have said but, I believe that "kept in order by brutal discipline and some clever regime factors" are sometimes even better then Patriotism and comradeship. and although most of them were lowlifes but they were a very organised and disciplined low lowlifes that would not retreat or run away not because they were very brave or had a concept of giving up their lives for the greater cause, No ! nothing like that. But because they were more afraid of their own centurions and friends, also Legions prestige was very important for them thats why each individual unit (Legion) was very competitive about their prestige and would do a lot to improve it. So the Early roman Legion was as noble by our todays standards but none the less he was more efficient than any other unit in the ancient world. Oh and about the Greek empire first of all although the Greek soldiers were very good but they weren't the right soldiers for an Empire the only reason for the creation of a Greek empire not for it soldiers (although a very important key) but more due to the talents of Alexander the great and the vices of his enemies. For example facing heavy infantry which superior to you by quality and moral you don't ! try to finish it in one glorious battle but instead you use your speed and mobility advantage and skirmish your enemy to exhaustion. Something that the Persian generals failed to do well, But was used very efficiently by their heirs the Parthia and the Sassanid empires against the heavy roman legion. Remember poor old Marcus Licinius Crassus and why he was defeated. oh and good joke their
  18. Friend ! all of what you said is true, but this is not the topic ! The subject is no roman legion from 430 BC of late empire but about a legion from around early empire. "what would happen if a Persian army from around 400 BC will meet a roman legion from around 50 AD" this is what we are talking about.
  19. I must disagree with you. The early empire legion had a lot of motivation due to patriotism and hansom rewards and lot so no problems with moral, the legionary was a very versatile unit back then he could handle well missiles due to it's heavy armor and big shields. also there is a lot of examples when roman legionary fought effectively against cavalry and even Parthian heavy Cataphract. Their only weakness is mobility against much lighter units like horse archer or skirmishers. But ! like we know in such a small place like Thermopylae they never can use their real potential. So in these conditions a sure bet are the Romans !
  20. 300 Spartan soldiers and additional 5000 Greek soldiers, why it's almost a legion. Can you imagine how much havoc a well disciplined and motivated legion can do. The light and maneuverable Persian infantry wouldn't stood a chance. Roman legionnaire were professionals at slaughtering light infantry in close quarter battles.
×