THIS THREAD IS MADE BY THE ORDER OF IMPERATOR GAIVS IVLIVS CAESAR OCTAVIANVS DIVI FILIVS AUGVSTVS TO DISCVSS THE GLORY OF ROME AND ALL VIDEO GAMES THAT ATTEMPT TO CAPTURE THAT
THIS MONTH'S PVBLIC BREAD IS PROVIDED BY THE CAPITOLINE BROTHERHOOD OF MILLERS. THE BROTHERHOOD VSES ONLY THE FINEST FLOUR. TRVE ROMAN READ FOR TRVE ROMANS.
What are some games where I can play as my ancestors and repel Roman scum for the glory of the gods?
MARS WILLS IT
A combination of things.
They spread too quickly which meant armies would take forever to get anywhere, everyone wanted to take power which meant a lot of infighting, trying to integrate outsiders with little to no effort and much more.
When I see my nation now and how great my ancestors where I cry. How much I would love to see Italy at that glory again. Roman Empire,Renaissance or even a good implemented Fascism.
Be the change you want to see, Anon.
I'd totally back an Italian politician who wanted a "return to form" for Italy, and try and spark the amazing work the Renaissance brought, or the cultural and political greatness of the Roman Republic and Empire.
I'm using Mundus Magnus, it's great, although only the map has changed, none of the other stuff like the building and unit edits. Also I transferred saves between computers and now the minimap colors are all messed up... anyone know what's up with that?
You know what's the most awesome thing about the Roman empire?
It's how "modern" everything seemed
Take this for example a guy complaining about women fighting in the coliseum:
>Poor weak things (they think), how little they really enjoy it!
It sounds exactly like someone from /v/ complaining about casuals/gurl gamers playing vidya
Exactly. I find it to be a good thing that a civilization has advanced enough to the point where there are civil wars.
>VIII.2 (in the basilica); 1820: Chie, I hope your hemorrhoids rub together so much that they hurt worse than when they every have before!
>You could argue it lasted until around 1450
No you couldn't. Only delusional Byzantiboos would argue something so fucking stupid.
Anyway, it's time.
>mfw conquering the HRE as Venice in M2TW
Why haven't there been any good TRUE ROMAN games in the last 10 years?
>mfw Mongolian horseniggers think barren undeveloped land compares to a glorious empire like Rome
While the Mongol Empire was definitely nothing compared to Rome, the whole stereotype of savage and bloodthirsty Mongols isn't entirely true either. It was actually a pretty great place to live. What wasn't great was being conquered by them, so most people just surrendered without a fight.
Technically it was, as a state it was a continuation of the Eastern Roman Empire created in the late 300s. It called itself Rome, the people called themselves Romans and it had a continuation of government that lasted (except for the 1204-1260s shenanigans) pretty much continuously.
It was the Roman Empire, it had its prestige for a reason. It was the same nation state.
>kickstarted Hellenism which had a massive cultural impact on the world, opening trade routes from Iberia to India and encouraging the development of the sciences and arts across its domains
>devastated China, ravaged eastern Europe, and singlehandedly ended the Islamic Golden Age in Persia and Central Asia
Mongols are shit, bro.
Shadow of Rome and Colosseum are my favorite console Roman games.
Rome: Total war and Praetorian for PC.
I thought RYSE was alright if not just because the main character was kind of cool.
Not to mention due to its shitty engine it took forever to load a turn.
After some time it could take up to 10 minutes (I've heard people say it took even longer) to load a new turn.
>An RPG set during classical antiquity, with a life sized map of Europe. You can choose the year you start, anywhere from 265 BC to 470 AD. Factions will be historically accurate. You can choose where you start and it will generate an origin story based on that. You can do whatever you want. Historical events will occur regardless of whether you interact with them or not. So the Punic Wars will always happen. You can join the Roman army and make sure history stays correct, or fight for Carthage and change history, or just be a travelling merchant who simply makes money off history. There's no real main plot, you're not really some grand chosen one, just a regular person making their way in the world. Comes with an online game world that starts at the earliest point and has time continually pass.
My dream game.
>implying your empire is worth shit
>20.5% of the land of the world's Greatest Empire
Roman Empire was a state centred on the Italian society of Rome that lasted through classical antiquity.
The Holy Roman Empire was a state formed by a medieval king descended from the Germanic barbarian Franks focused on modern Germany and central Europe generally. Frankish territory originally covered all of France, Germany and Austria. During the course of the early middle ages the different regions of "Francia" divided on language grounds until you got the medieval states of France, the Holy Roman Empire (essentially Germany) and a bunch of others.
Fucker, the Romans didn't use spacing. That came later. Here's how it should look, unless you can actually translate to classical Latin (Also fuck declensions):
No it wasn't.
It's only called that because it was under the banner of an Islamic empire, not because it had anything to do with religion.
Guys like Avicenna and Averroes had a big impact on western thought in the long run.
The HRE only exists because at the time, the true Roman Emperor, the Eastern Roman Emperor was actually an Empress, and the Pope thought well that can't really be the Roman Imperitor so he crowned Charlemagne Roman Emperor for consolidating power over most of Central Europe
>not assigning specific dishes for specific foods and reusing that same dish over and over
>Great depopulation of cities
>Decadence of the arts and sciences
>Lack of central administration
>"wars" were a bunch of skirmishes between local warlords, large "wars" were slightly larger skirmishes between warlords called kings
Revisionist pls go
Why didn't you own this country that's right in the middle of your territory if you're so great? Could it be that you're just taking other people's leavings? :))))):)):::)
dying and decrepit empires that are already in terminal decline isn't impressive.
look at the Punic wars and point towards an equal or greater triumph that the Brits could compare it too.
Stuff i've read makes it appear that Charlemagne wasn't really that into the idea, that it was sort of sprung upon him by the Pope, Popes of that era were decadent as fuck and squabbling with local Italian and Lombard aristocrats, by coronating Charlemagne the Pope was getting Frankish support for his own bullshit power struggles in Italy.
yh and they got shit by the huns and the mongols
trade doesn't work like that. new tech, new materials and new goods came back apparent due to genghis knwoing his trade and not being a greedy dick.
the mongols always tried to trade first but the chinese refused and got their shit pushed in and so did the persians.
And I quote Salvian during the fall of the Roman empire.
>So as not to perish under public persecution, they go and seek Roman humanity among the Barbarians, as they can no longer support Barbarian inhumanity among the Romans.
His soldiers mutinied because they'd been marching for like 8 years by that point and they wanted to spend their back pay and fuck some women.
India had a lot of fortified cities, elephants terrify horses
The eastern europe at the time of the huns wasn't the same at the time of the mongols, mainly there were no slavs but other nomads and german tribes.
The huns shat on the germanic tribes and other nomadic tribes, wich pushed them westward and prompted the great migration
He was roman, we don't get to decide what a nation consider themselves.
There have been plenty of emperors from africa or even germany, no one considers them anything other than roman emperors.
> Popes at the time were decadent
Your thinking of the Church during the Renaissance. The Popes were the only unifying figure in Christendom. They kept all the squabling kings (whether under Charles the Great or not) and the Eastern Empire from falling into absolute chaos.
FOLOWED BY JUNGLE
FOLLOWED BY ELEPHANTS
MIXED WITH VIRUS'S
AND THEN THEIR ARE THE NATIVE BUSH WOOKIES
in that order
ever since the greeks and Phoenicians discovered elephants they said don't fuck with the elephants
>The eastern europe at the time of the huns wasn't the same at the time of the mongols, mainly there were no slavs but other nomads and german tribes.
>The huns shat on the germanic tribes and other nomadic tribes, wich pushed them westward and prompted the great migration
ancient rome were corrupted and went to shit
fascism was corrupted and went to shit
italy is corrupter and is going to shi
no matter what italians can't into goverment
siamo comunque fottuti
i for one want a united state of europe and welcome our new germans overlords
Best and most unexpected Empire coming through
FUCK MILAN, those fucking backstabbers
you seem to be somewhat confused
This is a little bit later but it was still pretty bad beforehand, it was only the Papal reforms of the 11th century that stopped the Papacy being complete shit.
Popes didnt stop people from killing each other until the 11th century with the Peace of God movement, before that it was robber barons slaughtering and pillaging everywhere.
>Rome literally founds the western world and culture as we still know it today
>Mongols gave us some good yak-milking and archery tips, and lost everything they had in a single generation
yeah, Mongols fuckin rule dudes.
because the people of India has never met an Englishman or a jew before.
>either barren lands or underdeveloped countries
to this day still
>english rifles vs crude weapons
>worth a shit
May I remind you that you got your ass kicked by someone who VOWED NON-VIOLENCE
megalomaniac shitskin greeks detected
So many lost hours in High School. So many Barbarian crushed. So many Legions lost.
>they lost because some dumbfucks didn't know shit about history
Macedonians spoke their own language. Every piece of text from alexander's time asserts that they are different peoples by referring to them as "the macedonians and the greeks" and never includes them together. The belief that alexander was greek is modern and desperate.
Are you retarded?
Show me ANY document that reconds greeks or greece before 1800s
Macedonia exists on every map and is mentioned as a people and a sovereign country and kingdom in all the relevant ones
Macedonia having anything to do with greek city states is a part of the idea to fit in the 'Hellenic'-based invention scholars had of the old world, like this greek chap tries to convince us so strongly -"It was all greeks" :^)
this x1000 vs x10 dice roll
lol you lose
basically build an army stack move them and hope you make it to the place before the opposition army moves and then siege and wait for heaven to open up
it really really sucks
>Macedonians spoke their own language
No, they spoke their own dialect of Greek.
Protip: Ionians, Athenians, Laconians, Thessalians, Corinthians, Macedonians and so on all spoke a different dialect. There was no standardized "Greek" until Koine.
Armies are drawn from your landed vassals and they move on the map, when two armies hostile to each other land on the same province their composition is used to calculate casualties and victory.
Macedonian within Turkey before 1912 and its partition in 1913 among victorious aggressors from the Balkan League: Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Albania
Not him mate but saying that macedonians are greeks is like saying that byzantines were greek.
Macedonians were macedonians, they had their own kingdom and both the greeks and macedonians saw themselves as different people, the byzantines never called themselves byzantines (it's a term made up by 16th century scholars) but romans wich inhabited part of the balkans and anatolia.
Not exactly....Think Hearts of Iron 3 without an Order of Battle or Width and that's CK2's combat in a nutshell.
Byzantines were Greek, they just called themselves Romans.
Macedonians considered themselves their own separate people AND Greek at the same time, just like Athenians considered themselves Athenians first and Greeks second. It really isn't that complicated. They had their own state but so did every other Greek polity.
It's not hard to understand. Look up Partition of Macedonia in 1913. Before this period, "Greece" never had territories beyond Thessaly which they too annexed some years before
>saw themselves as different people
No, southern Greeks saw Macedonians as backwards chair-sitters, but they never once thought of them as non-Hellenic. They were never called barbarians, whereas Thracians and Illyrians often were.
That's wrong, also pointless.
>Byzantines were Greek, they just called themselves Romans.
No, they were Romans, you don't get to decide what a group of people identify themselves as.
The people living in San marino are pretty much the same as italians, yet they aren't italians because they don't consider themselves italians, it's not that hard.
It's ironic you would use Great Britain to shit talk Rome, considering Rome made the British Isles something worth giving a shit about, gave them culture, and their ability to make things other than crude sticks, and shit huts.
A lot of brits considered themselves the true heirs of the Roman Empire, also.
>The people living in San marino are pretty much the same as italians, yet they aren't italians because they don't consider themselves italians, it's not that hard.
That's retarded, sammarinese are ethnic italians, who follow italian cultural traditions and speak the italian language
Saying they're not italian is stupid
Romans were people from the city of Rome. People who lived under the Roman Empire labelled themselves Romans when given citizenship under Caracella's edict of 212.
Ethnically they were Greek, but they were part of what was still called Rome, so they called themselves Romans.
>mfw completing full Liberty tree with romans in Civ V
Italian is a fake language made up in 1860. People from Milan spoke their local language, if I recall Piedmontese or Milanese. Each Italy area has its own fucking village language that other Italians can't understand (good luck listening to Sicilian).
What about cultural identity? Their culture was the roman one, their religion was the state religion of the roman empire.
Their political identity wasn't greek, I don't get what were you trying to say.
They're not italians.
It's a flawed argument, first of all, they were ethnically people from the balkans and middle east, saying they were greeks is extremely ignorant, setting that aside, nothing changed between the end of the western roman empire and the empire of justinian, the only real change was the affirmation of greek as the main language wich culminated in the 9th century.
>greeks didnt consider macedonians foreigners
>Demosthenes the Orator against Philip of Macedon, father of Alexander The Great:
>Third Philippic 31:
>"...he is not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but not even a barbarian from any place that can be named with honour, but a pestilent knave from Macedonia, whence it was never yet possible to buy a decent slave."
The greeks were elastic as shit on this-skip forward to the Greaco-Persan war and you see them calling the Macedonians fellow greeks, trying to get them on board against Persia.
>big fan of Roman history, mythology, literature
>studied latin in high school, still read Ovidius for fun
>make Sengoku Rance clone of the Illiad instead of anything Roman because it's so easy to envision
I-I'll get to you eventually, Aeneas. I promise.
Makedones were Dorians though, the Pella tablets show that even the lower classes spoke Doric Greek. Demosthenes was just buttmad that the Argeades were stronger than his shit polis.
You had to have a Greek father and a similar culture.
Oh man so this newest patch of EU4 is making it a bitch to take a fresh byzantium and return it to its former glory.
I've managed to get this far and am finally westernizing, anyone know if EU4 supports the reformation of the roman empire like 3 did?
In a sense the Roman Republic wasn't worth saving. It was basically run by mafia families. Not only that, but the republic was set up in a way where as a senator, you had to get fame and glory and power, and be the best you could be. However, if you got too much fame, glory, and power, you were a tyrant and no better than the old kings. And the line that defined a tyrant was completely arbitrary, so you would have a situation where a senator had to know when to pass political opportunities by. In this sort of system, a powerful man like Caesar (or Marius or Cincinnatus) becoming a dictator is bound to happen. Maybe the Roman Empire was a natural progression of history, as was its destruction.
"To robbery, plunder, slaughter, they give the lying name of Empire. They make a desert, and call it peace." - Tacitus, a Roman senator.
>Yeah, but it's not just Italy
never said it was
>but all ethnic groups have a history of war.
as I said, backstabbing, double crossing wife stealing barbari with a first for power. tahts what humans are
have you even played Civ 5?
I have such a raging hardon for The Roman Empire.
Why were they so based?
The infighting wasn't brought by the empire, but the marian reforms and the size of the empire.
Professional armies meant a stronger military than anyone else, but also soldiers that never do anything else, couple that with the extent of the roman borders and you have your typical legion that has never seen the walls of the city wich the guy on the coins lives in, let alone know their emperor, meanwhile the general wich they fought with all this time is raising a claim to the throne.
Who do you think they're going to support?
>It was basically run by mafia families. Not only that, but the republic was set up in a way where as a senator, you had to get fame and glory and power, and be the best you could be. However, if you got too much fame, glory, and power, you were a tyrant and no better than the old kings. And the line that defined a tyrant was completely arbitrary, so you would have a situation where a senator had to know when to pass political opportunities by. In this sort of system, a powerful man like Caesar (or Marius or Cincinnatus) becoming a dictator is bound to happen.
sounds just like modern politics
even the greeks saw the problems of democracy and suffered first hand from the problems of total autocracy yet half the people who say "the greeks invented modern democracy etc" have no clue how they came upon that conclusion for that time peiod
well fuck me i got steamrolled by the ottomans/crimeans and a coalition of almost every small country around me. They didn't let up until I was bankrupted and lost half my territory then venice joined in the fun to finish me off while I was laying on the ground with cum gushing out of every hole.
Yeah, the old system was great at ruling a city state, but impractical for a Mediterranean empire. Kind of hard to get things done within a year when it might take a few months to get to a troublesome province.
>their culture was a Roman one
Yeah, speaking and writing in Greek, following Orthodoxy, venerating icons, wearing flamboyant clothes and partitioning the empire into themes was totally Roman culture.
there is nothing to argue about
its true. they understood that rulings powers will always be in the hands of the few. even when they tried to give power to the many (30 tyrants) shit fucks up fast
why is the captcha being such a bitch a clearing all the fucking time fucking hell google
the republic always had a pathological fear of tyrant-types, and clipped the wings of a lot of vainglorious, inappropriately ambitious men. But men like Sulla and Marius did not take kindly to rebukes, or to being politically undercut, and so turned on their enemies with violence. They damaged the community to protect their own positions, wealth, and prestige, and that precedence was set forever. Wealth and command became more important than the dignity and health of the republic.
>you will never charge into battle against the romans
>go to forvmstop
>looking to pick vp new copy of grand theft horse
>VIII/X bella at the covnter
>gotta keep it together
>go vp to the covnter with the game
>she smiles and says "that will be III denarii"
>reach into my toga
>no denarii, only pastae comes ovt
>stvtter ovt "w-wovld yov like to go to the c-colossevm with me"
>she politely smiles and says "sorry, I already have a boyfriend named secvndvs"
>sprint ovt of there crying like a greek watching a tragedy all the way back to my villa
>didn't even get my game
>pleb as fvck
Reminder that in the Roman Emperor, if you were a pretty good general, your soldiers could proclaim you emperor and if you fought the proper emperor and won you were now the proper emperor. Military coup as a check on the power of the Emperor is not a recipe for effective and stable rule.
>Gnosticism stamped out in the west
>Zurvanism stamped out in the east
The beautiful heresies always die young.
Fun fact. Romans were obsessed with dicks. It's probably the most covered up part of their history. In every roman city we dig up, EVERYTHING is covered with graffiti. The vast majority of this was either depictions of dicks or crude musing on dicks. Romans had an entire god of boners. Romans kept dick statues, dick paintings in the highest places of honor. Whenever a Roman had an erection it was something to be marveled at and appreciated. It was almost rude not to show your best mates your massive erection.
this was not in any way an intended recipe for governance, and usurpation did not come as check on the power of the sitting emperor. Very often, they were provincials who parlayed local grievances into support for their claim. That is to say, the sitting emperor would be perceived as weak and inattentive, and some general would get it in his head that he would be better at the job. Just as often, the idea was put into his head by subordinates who wanted plum positions in a new imperial court.
>In first fifty years CE, a man named Heron of Alexandria invented a device called an Aeolipile. It was a steam engine to which he never though to market because slave labor was plentiful and the device struck him only as a novelty. It was the single greatest error in judgment any human has ever made.
>But let's assume he had gone the other way and started an industrail revolution 1800 years early. Rome conquers the world unopposed; China had only rudimentary gunpowder before 500 CE. With a truly global hegemony, even a dispersed one (as is modern hegemony with corporate and military institutions today,) international war stops being advantageous. Civil war's still crop up, but collective security from neighboring states inclusivist religion dampers the external threats to. Rome develops for two more millenniums, not without challenge, not without trial. But without the Dark Ages, Crusades, World Wars, and Cold War.
>It is 3 Februarius 2763 RF (Roman Founding, 2010 CE.) And all wormholes lead to Rome.
The Romans were relentless and never gave up. When most other peoples would have surrendered the Romans said "nah, fuck ya" and raised another army. The war against Hannibal is a great example. They lost roughly 80,000 men in a single battle and never even considered surrendering. They pretty much wore Hannibal out.
>It's probably the most covered up part of their history
No it's not. It's not covered up at all. It just wasn't weird ass forbidden fruit like it is to us.
That's like saying we cover up milk in our history simply because no one writes about it.
You are retarded.
yes and they nearly completely destroyed athens. and the only way athenians got out of it was by destroying athens from the inside so they could get outside help. I mean shits relevant today still
I wish there was more known about continental Germanic mythology.
Instead everyone sucks Norse dick.
>implying Wotan wouldn't wreck your shit for putting retarded wings on a helm.
Obviously it was not the official way of doing things, but I would say it happened so often, especially after the end of the Pax Romana, that it was the de facto check on the Emperor's power.
I agree with you that the roman empire was based. But to answer your question, they were based because they were cruel. The Romans started out as a small group of people on the Italian peninsula. They grew to their massive size in 177 AD only through conquest, pillaging, and insensitivity among the soldiers and slave-owners.
That's what pisses me off about American-fags. Love and peace are taught and glorified as absolute virtues. That's bullshit. And yet it always works. Why? Because American fags are mawkish retards. Could the Romans have advanced the ancient world so much by being peaceful? No. Could they have united so many different cultures by being peaceful? No. Could they have protected their homeland by being peaceful? No. They needed to be callous (prevent themselves from being too loving) to protect themselves and progress.
The Mongols killed millions of people, spread a bit of culture, and then collapsed. They were fucking primitive horse-niggers. Thank god they only managed to defeat some Polish/Lithuanian forces in Europe.
>they were based because they were cruel
>muh modern morality
The Romans were by no means cruel for the era. They were far more tolerant and accepting of foreign culture than a lot of other cultures at the time.
The word you are looking for is persistent or imposing.
When I say "covered up" I mean it. The catholic church spent hundreds of years destroying roman dick art. Untold amounts of "smut" was burned and/or defaced. The only way we learned about the roman obsession with dick was though archeology. FUCK the "fig leaf" was invented by the church to cover the gentiles of Roman nude art.
I submit it is you, sir who are retarded.
Thanks to reading a lot of these comics as a kid I now have a hard time taking the Romans seriously.
>The only way we learned about the roman obsession with dick was though archeology.
or through what people wrote down about the catholic church. everyone who knows history knows what the church did ffs you are no special snowflake for saying muh dick art
>I submit it is you, sir who are retarded.
Learn English before you try and call someone retarded.
What you were implying is that the Romans had some degeneracy in relation to dicks and that people didn't know about it.
Both points are wrong. Shit like your last sentence is just wrong.
Not entirely. China sent an emissary, but he only made it to the Middle East. The Parthians told him it would take two years to cross the extremely dangerous Mediterranean to reach Rome. He wne t back to China not knowing it would only take a few weeks.
I love puns myself, but damn.
They traded as well. It's amazing how much more connected people have been than we thought. I disagree heavily with >>257169256 who categorises Roman history, and by implication, all history, as a history of war. This is a very simplistic reading. Rome was trading with the barbarians at its borders much more than they were fighting them.
History often focuses on war because that's generally the exciting part and the part that has the most visible impact on the world. Things like trade and diplomacy are overlooked despite being just as important if not more.
>much more than they were fighting them
Not him, and I agree with you, but Rome is retardedly aggressive.
I remember reading in Livy about a quiet year where the Romans sent an expedition into Umbria simply because it had been a quiet year.
The gates of Mars only closed like once during the Republic I think.
I see now why Italy sucks in the modern age. They went with the honor tree into liberty, into tradition, at the same time getting piety, then finally into patronage, and completely ignored later trees.
You are inferring things from the post that aren't there. All I am saying is that the church successfully covered up the roman obsession with sex and dicks for a thousand or more years. It's common knowledge now, but it wasn't until modern archeology came along. I am almost not implying that it's bad or wrong in any way it just was.
>You are inferring things from the post that aren't there.
>Calling Romans obsessed with dicks simply because the Catholic church erased them.
No, you are inferring things. One does not automatically equal the other. They had a rather normal attitude towards dicks and fertility for the period. It's us who who find them horrifying.
Although you clearly don't, faggot.
in dick, all find unity
I dick, therefore I am
What's kind of funny is that Rome didn't really want an empire to begin with because they couldn't govern it due to not having enough magistrates to govern the territories. A lot of their territorial gains after the Second Punic War were somewhat accidental. Particularly into Asia Minor which was left to them in a will. I think they got a foothold in Macedonia because of Macedonian aggression and once they defeated them they had to stay to prevent a hostile king taking over to threaten them again.
>Oh shit! Oh shit! Marcus!
>Fuck, I've accidentally made an Empire. And now it's getting everywhere!
>Fuck, what did you do?
>I don't know, I just did some stuff and now this happened! Oh shit, I'm making a desert and calling it peace!
>What did you do? WHAT DID YOU DO?
>IT KEEPS HAPPENING
>Best hope would be archaeologist or museum curator.
Complete opposite. Those are both very competitive and hard to get into. Your best bet is going through uni and getting an academic position or teaching it, which everyone can do.
You're better off just learning it yourself. Having someone teach you history is just going to have you adopt their bias and limit your field of view. WW2 is a case-in-point. Most people only bother to learn one point-of-view because that is the one that was taught at school
>Having someone teach you history is just going to have you adopt their bias and limit your field of view
You're an idiot, anon. When you go to university, you don't learn history, you learn history and how to learn it yourself.
University gives you a foundation from which to proceed yourself.
You are thinking of a very old and primitive method of teaching that's hardly ever applied any more.
I don't only subsume roman history under the category of warfare. Sorry if I made it seem that way, I just didn't mention that in the particular post. The Romans weren't just warriors, they were traders, politicians, villa-owners, ect. They grew their empire around the Mediterranean Sea for that purpose, so that they could trade better and dominate Mediterranean sea-trading. They even made some contact with China (julius caesar was rumored to have silk garments).
Anyway, bro, we can both agree on the Roman Empire being based. Also, what do you anons have to say about Friedrich Nietzsche's theory on Rome falling because of Christianity?
Pic Related, it's Byzantium.
You can do anything as a historian. In order to be successful or even employed, you need to publish books and articles.
You don't have to use new research either, however it makes it more interesting if you do.
You're also going to be lecturing and doing admin.
There is no such thing as a person that's paid to just study history.
>Historian covers a lot of shit.
that is the whole point of the wording.
you are one of the three here>>257171128
or working towards being one of the three or an assistant to one of the three. that is the career path. Or you are rich enough to own a museum and just be a rich artifact person
Yeah, no. If this were true, Arts students wouldn't come out of University being ardent Leftists that whine about Christianity and the evils of Western Civilisation.
>University gives you a foundation from which to proceed yourself.
The vast majority of people don't take that though and get through on a pass. It is easier to just sit there and regurgitate what your lecturers have told you.
It's popular because of Gibbon, but I don't think it holds up.
any bros here enjoy the smell of their dick?
i'm always digging my thumb into my foreskin and rubbing out the scent/oils, then putting it up to my nose and smelling it
i do this very often
>Rome falling because of Christianity?
I think it's horseshit. Rome didn't fall because Mars no longer favored them okay, that's just fedora-master atheists making up whatever they want to make Christianity seem bad
It makes sense that the people with no education are the ones shitposting happy merchant everywhere.
>If this were true, Arts students wouldn't come out of University being ardent Leftists that whine about Christianity and the evils of Western Civilisation.
This is just some weird notion you have created, or maybe it's actually like that in your shit country.
There is no one in my department like that except for this one batshit crazy feminist woman that people avoid.
>Arts students wouldn't come out of University being ardent Leftists that whine about [...] evils of Western Civilisation.
Is this a thing we're not meant to do? There are bad things in Western Civilization I don't like, but maybe I shouldn't mention that and be content with current hierarchical power structures.
Alexander did indeed win a victory against Porus, who ruled lands around the Indus Valley River.
Alexander's troops were tired and felt like they have gone to far into unknown lands and away from home. They were homesick.
Christianity was one of the many factors.
It's not that Christianity itself was bad, it's that it caused even more of a division between the people of an already collapsing state.
>they defeated huns
the huns defeated themselves
seriously fuck these captchas I'm going bed
>during their prime
there are still armies on modern day earth who would have gotten their ass beat by the romans
>he really thinks this is mountain blade
>implying several thousand horses have room to successfully maneuver hit-n-run tactics
>implying roman shield
>implying mongols wernt stupid
fast-moving hordes like the Muslims, Huns, and Mongols only happened during periods of weak central authority
they were so successful in such a short amount of time because there was no serious, unified resistance. The classical powers were shadows of their former selves. Their successes also very often coincided with periods of plague and severe economic repression.
The myth of eastern horse archers confounding and terrorizing the west is just that, a cool myth for video games and artwork.
Nah, the Germanic tributaries got wrecked. the Hun army faced only negligible casualties.
>Also, what do you anons have to say about Friedrich Nietzsche's theory on Rome falling because of Christianity?
Ridiculous. Like another anon in the thread said, the Reforms of Gaius Marius were the major cause of Rome's fall. It basically created a hotbed for civil war that bled the Empire dry.
>turn soldiers into mercenaries whose livelihoods depend upon soldiering
>give the generals life and death power over their soldiers
>regularly force the generals to have to pay the wages of their soldiers out of their own pockets
>regularly force the generals to fight tooth and nail to get land allocations for their soldiers
>suddenly generals now have their own private and fanatically loyal armies
What could go wrong? It became even worse in the Principate when the generals were full timers and not part-time Senators too. This meant that the generals were with the same troops for years and bonds were formed between soldiers and their general. Rome was doomed to fall. I can't really think of a way in which it could have been avoided. The Reforms were necessary to enable Rome to wage war but they also led to its downfall.
Also, considering that the heavily Christian Eastern Roman Empire survived for a thousand years after the Western Empire fell, blaming Christianity is quite literally an atheist cop-out to explain history they have no understanding of.
Why do Britbongs actually believe their empire was better than Rome?
Let's look at the facts, Britain gained all their land be slaughtering spear throwing cave men who had not even made the wheel yet, with guns.
Rome went from a shitty farming village to ruler of 2.5 million square miles by conquering neighbors who had been powerful, established nations long before Rome even existed. You're a joke Britain.