Roman Conquests

[Iulius]

I chose itlay becuasue i like the whole idea of the solider farmer. A man plows his land and when called for duty goes off for a month and fights a neighboring city, then come home and keeps plowing. Sorry if your particular favorite is not on the poll but i could only have 10 poll items.

[longbow]

im most interested in the Britannia campaign,because thats were i live.

[Primus Pilus]

Carthage and Gaul have always been the most compelling for me, simply because of the vastness of the campaigns. (Though the conquest of Carthage occured mostly away from their actual home) Of course, as an admirer of Caesar I'm partial to his personal literary achievement, and that may have a tiny impact on decision

[Ursus]

I guess the most important conquest to me was Hellas, given that I love the cultural fusion. Although trade from the East exercised Hellenic influences on Rome since the beginning.

[Valens]

I chose Italy. Primarily becuase I love to study of the Samnite Wars. The early Italic confederations have always had my admiration (especially Samnium), yet they are always quite hard to learn of due to sketchy sources. Not to mention that I am most familiar with the Early Roman Armies .

[Spurius]

I like the Egyptian conquest not because of the military aspects (not that there were any to speak of), but because from that point on Rome was bled of its gold in ever increasing amounts.

 

Egypt, oft conquered - never digested.

[Maximus Caesar]

I prefer Brittania, it being the northern boundary of the Empire and the place where Sarmatian Knights like Arthur Castus (King Arthur) was stationed. :sniper:

[Komet]

Parthia, especially Crassus's failed attempt at Carrhae, and Carthage.

[longbow]

I prefer Brittania, it being the northern boundary of the Empire and the place where Sarmatian Knights like Arthur Castus (King Arthur) was stationed. :sniper:

kING Arthur wasnt a roman he was a pagan.that movie was a load of crap!!!!!!!

[Ursus]

The legend of King Arthur is probably a composite of several different figures, historical and mythological.

 

But there does seem to have been a Romano-Celtic war chieftan who won several temporary victories against Saxon invaders in the decades after the Roman withdrawl from Britannia.

[Primus Pilus]

Actually nobody knows the true origin of Arthur... hence Arthurian legend. Who knows, perhaps the movie was right on. (LOL yeah right). As for Lucius Artorius Castus, however, he was very likely of direct Italian lineage.

 

Rather than begin a lengthy discourse... this page by Linda Malcor provides an excellent resource on Castus.

[Maximus Caesar]

I prefer Brittania, it being the northern boundary of the Empire and the place where Sarmatian Knights like Arthur Castus (King Arthur) was stationed. :sniper:

 

kING Arthur wasnt a roman he was a pagan.that movie was a load of crap!!!!!!!

Hey, I said he was a Sarmatian knight, I did not say he was a Roman. He may have bee a pagan, but he was a good pagan who believed salvation could be attained through man's grace.

[Bombay211]

what i have hurd is that King Arthur was a roman calvaryman during the roman occupation but then again there soo many different versions of the legend that it cannot be proved if he was a roman or not

[Bombay211]

or if he even existed

[Ursus]

If you guys get the "History Channel" they sometimes run a two hour documentary on the Arthurian legend. You should watch it, it's as informative as any scholarly book on the subject.

 

For the record, it's most likely Athur is a confusion of several different figures. However, there is fairly credible evidence to suggest a Romano-Celtic calvary warlord temporarily halted the encroaching Saxon hoardes in the decades following the Roman withdrawl from Britain.