Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums

Axel Wers

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Axel Wers

  1. I think it's not possible consider what enemy was the most dangerous for Roman for easy reason: history of Roman Empire (including kingdom and republic) is very long with different historical outcomes.

    1. Roman Kingdom: Early Rome controlled part of Apennine peninsula and Romans had to fight with some other inhabitants like Umbrians, Etruscans etc. Rome was "only" common city state like other cities in neighbourhoods.

    2. Roman Republic: Gauls looted Rome in 390 BC. and Rome was almost defeated. Romans fought for last buildings and fortunately they won. Yes Carthaginians were very dangerous. After Battle of Canae Hannibal could led war against Rome city directly, but he stopped his campaign and Romans could repair their defence.

    3. Roman Empire: Wars with germanic tribes were infinite. Empire was exhausted after few centuries. We cannot forget the Persian empire, permanent enemy on eastern boundaries for 4 centuries. And finally Arabs and Turks who took vast territories and empire lost important areas (like Egypt, and later Anatolia).


    These points are reasons why Roman Empire was one of few greatest empires in Earth history. Romans fought on several fronts with various enemies with different weaponry and been able to maintain their empire for two millennia.

  2. First: I think: NO

    Roman empire in 69AD was powerful empire without real strong enemies (maybe Parthian empire on the East, but Parthians were dangerous only for some eastern borders). Germans were still poor in that time.

    Second: Galba maybe would be good emperor, we don't know very well about Otho nor Vitellius, their reign was very short (Otho especially). Vespasianus was good and able emperor. I think he could be marked as "little" father of empire (like  Augustus), because he brought stability for empire. He finished civil war and brought peace for empire. Only Domitianus was not good emperor but thanks to his cruel reign could Nerva catch throne and establish glory nervan-antonine dynasty.

  3. Not easy to tell, because Eastern Empire existed more than 1000 years and during this age was different political situation in different centuries.

    First: Persians (5-7 century). Byzantine inherited this nemesis after split of Roman Empire. Wars with Persians were bloody and finally noticeably weakened both empires in the worst possible time - during muslim rise.

    Second: Muslims / Arabs (7-12 century). Muslims were in relatively easy situation. Byzantine empire was seriously weakened, Persians near to total collapse. After muslim attacks Persia definitely collapsed, Byzantine lost Levant and Egypt - important breadbasket. When Byzantine lost vast teritories, world power decreased to local power. From this time Byzantine wasn't not superpower, but only (but important) fortification against muslim invasion to Balkan.

    Third: Ottomans (13-15 century). Although Ottomans destroyed Byzantine empire, they were mainly consequence of muslim wars (turkish people were islamized similar like Persians). In this time power of Byzantine was low, Empire was weak without possibility to reconquest lost teritories.

    In my opinion Muslims / Arabs were the worst enemies.

    Don't forget on orthodox - catholic relations. Bad relations were very important factor for stability East Roman Empire.


    "Good" old enemies (like Goth, Vandals etc.) were secondary enemies. They were focused on western part of former Empire.

  4. Have you any connection with Roman Empire?
    Mine: I live in town Trencin (in Roman age named Laugaricio), modern Slovakia. In 179AD Romans defeated german tribes in this area and left inscription on the rock below the today Trencin Castle. Thanks to this inscription we know about settlement in this area what makes Trencin one of the oldest towns in central Europe. Marcus Aurelius planned to create a new province here, but died and Commodus withdrew from this area.

    • Like 1


    I personally feel that Scipio "Africanus" is a viable candidate for this topic.


    I could agree. I read something about his descendants and they also weren't much better from point of this view. I have to find sources about this. Here is a little example.



    I have little change my opinion. I confused overrated with underrated. I am jerk.



    I tell one thing: Only Scipio was able to defeat Hannibal for sure. That same Hannibal who destroyed almost whole Roman army.

  6. It is defenitely on our agenda to create some cool roman themed Tshirts and sell them via this site.

    Great! (and thanks for link)



    be careful to order from the USA, you might end up paying extra customs on top of shipping costs

    Yes, this is main reason why I don't want to buy goods from the USA, shipping is expensive.



    maybe you have some cool design suggestions for a real awesome Tshirt?

    Yes I have some suggestions, for example t-shirt (and maybe flag too) of Legion II Adiutrix, this legion stayed in my town 1835 years ago. I can send you some images via PM.

  7. I did notice, however, that both Portugal and Spain score quite high for R1b: Italo-Celtic, Germanic; Hittite Armenian, Tocharian. They are more likely to be Celtic-Germanic than Hittite-Armenian, don't you think?  ;)


    Yes, but we have to analyze what R1b group includes. I found this:


    The Germanic branch (S21/U106)


    The principal Proto-Germanic branch of the Indo-European family tree is R1b-S21 (a.k.a. U106). This haplogroup is found at high concentrations in the Netherlands and north-west Germany.




    R1b-S21 became the dominant haplogroup among the West Germanic tribes, but remained in the minority against I1 and R1a in East Germanic tribes, including those originating from Sweden such as the Goths, the Vandals and Lombards.




    The Goths help propagate S21 around Eastern Europe, but apparently their Germanic lineages were progressively diluted by blending with Slavic and Balkanic populations, and their impact in Italy, France and Spain was very minor.



    Based on this, R1b group in spanish gene pool doesn't come from the Visigoths.

  8. I have been amusing myself by reading through the alternate history wiki.


    Here is someone's overly simplified yet interesting idea of an alternate Rome. Marcus Aurelius chooses a better heir than Commodus, beginning an alternative jumping off point.. The Empire becomes federated, and survives into the nuclear age with the emperor as Christian theocrat.




    I know that page.


    Would be interesting.


    In my opinion Roman empire had to possibility to be world superpower. Without problems. Of course there were some issues, which stopped it.



    I was wondering what would happened when Crassus would won Battle of Carrhae (53 BC). Maybe Parthian kingdom would be part of Roman republic and in future Persian (Sassanid) empire wouldn't be created. But I think Battle of Carrhae wasn't important battle for republic because republic and then empire have had military superiority over Parthians.


    I think more important battle was Battle of the Teutoburg Forest in 9 AD. As I wrote earlier this battle split western world between roman and germanic culture. Although Romans sent some troops to Germania after Varus failure, and they were able to defeat Germans few times, roman's superiority in this region was definitely ended. And now, what would be happened when Varus would won and Romans were able change Germania to province? Romans would move limes to Elbe river, later maybe to Vistula River. Then they could create limes on this river and merge limes with limes on Danube river. Romans with Germans (Goths mainly) could inhabite together areas of modern Germany, west Poland, Czech, Austria and western Slovakia. Germans would be gradually romanized. Marcomanic wars would never started. Roman legions which fighted against Parthians didn't bring plague to european part of empire, plague which had drastic impact on empire. This plague had negative effect on empire which over time led to the crisis of 3rd century.

  9. Hi,

    I am from Slovakia, I live in Trencin town, where Romans left the inscription on the rock after victory of legions over germanic tribes in 179 AD. First time I met with roman history about 25 years ago in basic school.  I am focused mainly on history Roman (and Byzantine) Empire and its relations with germanic tribes and Persians. My further interest is focused on the period of the Greco - Persian relations.


    I have lot of knowledges about empire, negative thing is that I never visited Rome (but maybe in close future it will be changed). I visited Constantinople (nowadays it's called Istanbul) 5 years ago.


    My favorite emperors are Augustus, Vespasianus, Traianus, Marcus Aurelius, Iulianus (Apostate) and Iustinianus.

    I knew this community board few years but registered only few days ago :D

    • Like 1

  10. Hi Aurelia, thanks :)


    I read some info about Visigoths, but everything stopped sometimes in 721 AD when last visigothic ruler Ardo died. There is some information that some Visigoths converted to islam and mixed with Moors. Other could mixed with roman-hispanian people, but.............


    This page shows that "german" haplogroups almost disappeared in spanish gene pool. So Visigoths probably were completely assimilated in all aspects. Like Hungarians completely lost their uralo-finnic gene pool.

    • Like 1

  11. Augustus had some plans to take control (probably) over Arabia Felix (modern Yemen), but troops that were sent there, weren't very successful. Actually they were defeated. After this Augustus focused on other parts of borders.



    Julian the Apostate was planning to invade Sassanid Persia.


    Julian really invaded to Persia, but underestimated the situation and his campaign failed.

  12. Yes, this is an interesting topic. Macedonian phalanx was probably the best attack formation in ancient era. Alexander the Great was able to destroy whole Persian empire with his phalanx troops. Phalanx formation had massive attack strength, but not mobility. This was big issue for Macedonians.

    And we have to compare differences between Greek and Macedonian phalanx. Greeks used bigger shields (named hoplons, so fighters were hoplites) and spears about 2,5 metres in length. Macedonians used only small shields if any. So they shouldn't be called "hoplites", right? But their spears were very long, about 6-7 metres. Few rows of Macedonians could create strong defense with lot of spears.


    I wonder why Romans didn't use Macedonians - or Macedonian phalanx formation, in their east military campaigns. I don't know. My memory is not very good about this, but I think I read article, where Romans were the most successful when they used some phalanx formations against Parthians. Maybe Traianus? Really I don't remember. I need to more study about Roman - Parthian/Persian conflicts.