Rome vs Han China
- Thread starter IDonT
- Start date
- Status
PiSigma
"the engineer"
rommel, my roman history is not wrong, the antonines was basically the last major dynasty of rome, commodus, the emperor who fought gladiators was the one in the movie gladiator and also the last antonines emperor, he's the only one that inherited his title from his dad, every other emperor in the dynasty had to prove his worth with deeds first. the three punic wars spanned about 80 years, first one rome got sicily, second one rome defeated Hannibal, only in the third one did rome destroy Carthage and salted its fields. there were three civil wars, first was Marius vs Sulla, second was Pompey vs Caesar, and third was Octavian vs Antony. which then created the Julio-Claudian dynasty, which lasted from about 14-70 ad, then the Flavian dynasty which was only for like 25 years or so. this is where the Antonines comes in and rules for about 85 years. after that the roman empire is non-officially split into west and east, it is also where i considered the empire as good as dead. Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus was the one who came us with the whole tetrarchy idea, by then the empire was already pretty much split. Flavius Theodosius I basically made it official by spliting the two sides between his sons Arcadius and Honorius.
btw.. for the people who don't know much about roman culture, romans only had 20 first names, no more no less, and only 10 are used commonly. so there's a lot of repeats for names. caesar is actually a cognomen or nickname that later on became like a last name. caesar actually means white hair
to rommel, i don't even know where my history text went, remember this from good ol trusty brain.
btw.. for the people who don't know much about roman culture, romans only had 20 first names, no more no less, and only 10 are used commonly. so there's a lot of repeats for names. caesar is actually a cognomen or nickname that later on became like a last name. caesar actually means white hair
to rommel, i don't even know where my history text went, remember this from good ol trusty brain.
I count four major civil wars:
1 Sulla vs. Marius
2 Ceasar vs. Pompey
3 Brutus and Cassius vs. Macus Antonius, Octavian and Lepidus
4 Marcus Antonius and Cleopatra vs. Octavian
Between 3 and 4, Octavian had to deal with Pompey sons. Battle of Naulochos should be known.
The last war culminated with a major fleet battle at Actium. Marcus Antonius fleet was crushed by Octavians navy lead by Marcus Agrippa.
How did you keep them supplied? How can you command them on a battle-field? On what kind of terrain will the fight occur?
In forrests like in europe, cavalry and crossbows are pretty useless. Imperial roman legions were capable of marching nearly soundless, attacking at once with overwhelming force and huge psychological impact.
On a wide open plain, cavalry has many benefits.
It's always the question, what an army is designed to do.
Btw, Rome was not destroyed by huns. It was destroyed by Goths living inside roman borders.
PiSigma
"the engineer"
i agree with mczosch, near the end of the roman empire, due to low birth rates, and too many skirmishes, much of the roman legions were replaced by germans. one of the top generals was actually german, can't rmemeber name. but his first loyalty was not to rome, and neither was the soldiers.
FreeAsia2000
Junior Member
TJJH said:
Actually the Roman empire split into two. The Western section came under the leadership of christian fundamentalists and declined.
The Eastern roman empire continued but was not acknowledged as truly Roman by the western europeans partly out of jealousy and spite but also because of different religious power bases.
I don't think Roman armies were all that good except when they were fighting in Europe. Mostly because the Europeans were disorganised. They kept on losing pretty consistently against any army from Asia.
my ancestors defeated the romans...
can anybody guess which famous war...give you a clue...the romans were really really badly defeated
like
FreeAsia2000 said:Actually the Roman empire split into two. The Western section came under the leadership of christian fundamentalists and declined.
The Eastern roman empire continued but was not acknowledged as truly Roman by the western europeans partly out of jealousy and spite but also because of different religious power bases.
I don't think Roman armies were all that good except when they were fighting in Europe. Mostly because the Europeans were disorganised. They kept on losing pretty consistently against any army from Asia.
my ancestors defeated the romans...
can anybody guess which famous war...give you a clue...the romans were really really badly defeated
like
The byzantines (eastern Romans) lasted until the 1400's.
What is your defination of Asia?
I would assume, Parthia. In that case it was true. In the battle of Carhae, 10,000 parthians slaughtered 40,000 romans. This was partly due to the ineptitude of its commander, Crassus.
When the Romans attacked again under Trajan in 110 AD, they beat the Parthians and captured their capital Csitephon. After Trajan died, the next emperor Hadrian abandoned his conquest.
After the Parthains defeated Rome, there were rumors that parthians took romans into there ranks and even sold some to the mongols as mercenaries. The reason they did not go back to rome besides the long journey was that they would never be accepted after such a loss in battle. When the chinese were kicking Siung Niu butt in kazakhtan( when the Siung Niu were controlling the silk road) A chinese general named Tu Mo reported seeing yellow haired warriors in the enemies ranks.
As for romans being split in two. I believe the other half was in Russia, It was then called the last stand of rome. The dispute came from the pope and the east orthodox church, one would acknowledge themselves as roman but since the romans started in rome...
As for romans being split in two. I believe the other half was in Russia, It was then called the last stand of rome. The dispute came from the pope and the east orthodox church, one would acknowledge themselves as roman but since the romans started in rome...
FreeAsia2000
Junior Member
IDonT said:
well done...actually the Parthians lost because my ancestors would nolonger support them. By the time of Trajan the Parthian rulers had come to ape all the evil tyranny of the Romans.
Stonewind the Roman empire was NEVER russian. The Russians decided that they were the inheritors of the Roman empire and named their rulers Czars but nobody really accepted their claim.
The Roman empire was finally destroyed by Muslim armies in the 1400's in which my ancestors took part...so you see Trajan lost.
Last edited:
FreeAsia2000 said:
longer support them. By the time of Trajan the Parthian rulers had come to ape all the evil tyranny of the Romans.
Stonewind the Roman empire was NEVER russian. The Russians decided that they were the inheritors of the Roman empire and named their rulers Czars but nobody really accepted their claim.
The Roman empire was finally destroyed by Muslim armies in the 1400's in which my ancestors took part...so you see Trajan lost.
It was the Ottomans who finally conquered Constantinople.
- Status