Were the Romans really so strong? They fought most against primitive

>>2261249
>As soon as they meet "equal" nations, like the persians, they got smashed.
but they didn't, you moron

>>2261249
They spent most of their time fighting each other Anon.

File: 81ec2033d7a6f581d8d47b15d512f8c9.png (32KB, 798x498px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 798x498px

>>2261249
The romans smashed the Persians plenty of times m8, even reaching the banks of the Tigris River.

Also their early history was when they fought pretty comparable peers and defeated them, Carthage, Macedon, and Ptolemaic Egypt being a few.

>>2261249

>Fought most against primitive barbarians and decadent Greeks.

Stop. Leave. Never post again.

>>2261284
This. Edward Gibbon is amongst us friends.

>>2261249
>As soon as they meet "equal" nations, like the persians, they got smashed.
Diocletian sacked Ctesiphon pretty badly

>>2261249
>As soon as they meet "equal" nations, like the persians, they got smashed
It's mind boggling how anybody could think this. There's literally nothing to support the idea. At all.

>>2262716
>There's literally nothing to support the idea. At all.
Shapur I destroying Valerian's forces...

Sassanian Empire got a hold of Armenia longer than the Romans and more.

>>2263011
Valerians army was falling apart from plague

>>2261282
this
it's not like rome at peak or near peak power couldn't have totally obliterated persia if they REALLY wanted to, there just wasn't any realistic reason to justify such an undertaking while they could have conceivably pulled it off, and they definitely wouldn't have been able to hold it for much time considering everything else

File: romansvspersiansparthians.png (644KB, 1314x1224px) Image search: [Google]

644KB, 1314x1224px

>>2261265
>>2261282
>>2262716
>>2263025
>>2263049

>hurr durr Rome was undefeated
>if they lost it's cause of some stupid general or a plague or .. or.. or..

Fucking pathetic.

Well Rome got smashed by barbarians eventually.

>>2263108
Nice cherrypicking you've done there. How many times did the Romans capture Ctesiphon, Persia's damned Capital? Several times, at least. Stop being a fanboy, Persia is impressive enough without your cartoonish shilling.

>>2261249
>"equal" nations
Rome wasn't a nation in its expansion, it was an Empire of disparate peoples who assimilated to the Roman macro culture.

>>2261249
Romanboos long time ago became even more annoying than weaboos. Early medieval France alone could take over rome at it's peak under a year.

>>2263165
>early medieval france
>literally the holy roman empire lite

>>2263150
>cherrypicking

Romans captured Ctesiphon maybe 4 or 5 times, only to return it for "peace". Doesn't make much sense when you consider all of Rome's wars (in the beginning) were acts of aggression in order to expand the empire, does it.

I'm not being a fanboy. I'm angry people keep romanticizing Romans to the point that they seem them as "unmatched" or "omnipotent" which was FAR from the fucking truth. To me Persians/Parthians were more or less on par with one another. Romans controlling the West and Persia the East. Both falling prey to uncivilized savages.

File: gallo-languages.jpg (24KB, 586x560px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 586x560px

>>2263213
>Both falling prey to uncivilized savages.

Not him, but:

And who would that be? In the West?

>>2263229
... the barbarians (germanic tribes)

>Celts
>Excellent metal-working, responsible for chainmail
>A couple centuries before Caesar's conquest they had rampaged across Europe, invading Italy, the Balkans and Greece, even reaching into Anatolia
>Fearsome warriors who were prized as capable mercenaries as far as Egypt, and were well capable of proper military formations and tactics

>Not a worthy adversary

Topkek

>>2261249

I have this "primitive barbarians" meme.

Listen, if they were just primitive barbarians, the Romans would never have created the auxiliary cohorts, and specialized units from said barbarians. Caesar would never have had Germans personally guard him. The Imperial Singularian Horse would not have existed. Nor would the Varangian Guard.

So please, stop being retarded around me and on /his/.

Go back to that autistic Grand Strategy general over on /vg/. kthxbai.

>>2263108
>Roman defeats are because the romans sucked
>Persian defeats were misfortunes that were caused by a vast host of factors, none of them being Persian incompetence though

>>2263383
First of all the auxilliary units were created to bolster Rome's military strength and to fill out the range of battlefield roles required in a balanced army.

And secondly Caesar's bodyguard, the Singularian Horse and the Varangian Guard were all recruited from foreigners since it ensured that they were reliant on their benefactor for their pay and protection in a land they weren't familiar with and would hopefully ensure their loyalty as a result. I don't think non Roman barbarians were primitive per se but your reasoning in both of your assertions is way off.

>>2263150
Ctesiphon wasn't a capital in the same way Rome or Constantinople was, and acted more like their Mesopotamian colony overseeing trade, taxes, and some leisure. It's kind of why Rome could take it so many times and not see Persia collapse. It was more like Antioch for the Romans, a vulnerable city that nonetheless commanded too much of the regional economy to ignore. The slightest change in the northern Syrian border would open up either city to raiding and temporary conquest.

>>2263423
>And secondly Caesar's bodyguard, the Singularian Horse and the Varangian Guard were all recruited from foreigners since it ensured that they were reliant on their benefactor for their pay and protection in a land they weren't familiar with and would hopefully ensure their loyalty as a result. I don't think non Roman barbarians were primitive per se but your reasoning in both of your assertions is way off.

And why did they recruit 'barbarians' for this purpose and not north-africans, or persians, or Sarmatians?

>>2265000
Different styles of warfare? Numidians were famous for their light troops and skirmisher tactics, sarmatians similar, and Persians would just be a bad idea in regards to loyalty. Also they weren't famous as fearless melee warriors

>primitive barbarians
>so primitive romans sacked their towns for loot and reigned them in for their wealth

gaul was a prosperous place, just not united
iberia was full of riches
egypt, dont need to say anything
armenian, punic, pontic, seleucid wars for gold

>Rome Total War is my only source
not even that

>>2263011
Guys do you remember the Persian Sack of Rome? Guys? How about the Roman Sack(s) of Ctesiphon?

The main thing to understand is that Rome spent it's earliest history fighting wars with equal powers and winning, before spiraling outward once the last of the other powers outside of Persia was destroyed.

>>2261249
>decadent Greeks
lmao, the Dadiochi were no joke, except for the Selucids that is.

>>2266677
>Guys do you remember the Persian Sack of Rome?
Replace with the Persian Sack(s) of Antioch. See >>2263621

>>2261249
Carthage got dolenda'd, plebeian.

>>2261249
Not really. The Romans are extremely overrated by this board. Anyone with a similar level of development defeated them multiple times.

And Rome was defeated by barbarians.

>>2267381
>Rome was defeated by barbarians

So were Persia and China, but we don't undervalue them.

>>2267381
Rome wasn't defeated by barbarians, it was defeated by the Romans

>>2263621
It was quite literally the residence of the Parthian kings for half the year.

>>2267215

Why are you conflating the Parthians and the Sassanids?

>>2268022
A vacation home for half the year. It's not as if it was home to the major houses of Persia and where they recruited their armies from. Like he said, Rome it was not.

>>2265246
Childhood is when you idolize the Romans. Adulthood is when you realize they were the real barbarians.

>>2263383
>The Imperial Singularian Horse

The Imperial what?

>>2261249
American spotted. Every fucking time there is a retarded post, there is an American behind it. Why can't you people just leave this board alone?

Everybody realizes you guys are retards at history. I'm not even talking about you not having any idea about pre-1776 history. You just don't understand it in general. How it works, how do military tactics work, how did great empires work. You don't know anything. And yet you still make vague claims about shit all the fucking time. You are the cancer of this board. Everybody knew that long before it was founded. That Americans will fuck it up. But i guess we hoped that you guys will realize you are so dumb about history and leave it alone. Now its full of retarded threads, claims and thanks to how many of you retards is here, they are all on the top page.

Its like if we got a egg of an extinct species and then the retarded kid comes along and starts playing football with it. You don't belong here. You ruin everything. Please leave.

>>2270189

You're probably American lol.

>>2267381
>Rome was defeated by barbarians.

There are literally only a couple of fixed battles between barbarians and Romans where they were defeated over the course of many centuries. The Romans destroyed their own armies. While the Vandals were pouring across into Africa Comes Bonifacius was invading Italy and attacking Aetius.

Oh. Never mind. You don't actually know shit about what you're talking about. You're just putting out an opinion based on some cursory glances at /his/, /pol/ and popular documentaries on Youtube.

>>2270151
He meant Equites singulares Augusti

>>2270189
Shut up, you know we're all dumb Americans on this board.

>>2268619
This. Now I'm a Hellaboo. Based Athenian Empire.

>>2266746
Macedon had been shit on by civil wars and invasions so hard for so long that the Romans weren't going to war with it so much as putting it out of its misery. At its peak, Macedon would have destroyed Rome and shattered its hold on Italy.

>>2270189
Exactly how many of the shit threads here were ever confirmed to be made by Americans anyway? How many of them did you just assume were by Americans without any actual proof?

Not OP, but fuck off, I'll go on whatever damn board I please.

OP is being a retarded faggot though.

File: Corbulo.jpg (575KB, 1132x1944px) Image search: [Google]

575KB, 1132x1944px

>>2261406
Trajan did it a few times like it was a military exercise.

>>2273254
Yeah, they lacked the manpower since most of their young men had gone over to serve in the Diadochi kingdoms as Klerouchs. Plus they couldn't even afford to maintain decent cavalry.

File: Het_Valkhof_-_Reiter_mit_Pferd.jpg (1MB, 1920x2560px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x2560px

>>2263383
Caesar used the Germans because they were foreigners with no allies in Rome The Varangians were a continuation of this tradition. The Batavi on the other hand could probably go toe to toe with any legion.

>there are still people that don't realize the Romans were remarkable for organization and not technology or discipline

>>2273401
>discipline

Fustuarium, decimatio

> technology
They had some pretty good engineers

>>2265121
>Also they weren't famous as fearless melee warriors
Except they actually were to the people who fought them. Persian courage was praised even by the greeks who fucking killed them.

>>2273254
>At its peak, Macedon would have destroyed Rome and shattered its hold on Italy.
The romans felt otherwise... and they were right.

>>2273412
You're fucking retarded. Decimation was almost never used. Polybius found the romans to be less disciplined than hellenes, and roman "discipline" isn't even the same fucking concept as modern discipline.

>>2273647
>The romans felt otherwise... and they were right.
The Romans never fought Macedon at its peak.

>>2273390
In the Fertile Crescent earlier they used Syrians as bodyguards.

>>2275192
No, they just fought phyruss, who was seen as the second coming of Alexander by men who knew them both.

File: 1f9c4e9923e4a77a0767222fcc13922343678324e3ace5ed2183b71889687015.jpg (134KB, 969x596px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 969x596px

>>2261249
The romans collapsed parthia economically via constant war if I recall correctly.

You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

>>2263108
Nobody said rome was undefeated you absolute autist. Rome became the greatest empire in the history of mankind specifically BECAUSE they experienced defeats and new challanges that forced them to darastically change their military doctrines in order to survive.

I seriously think you must have downs syndrome or be mentally deficient in some serious manner.

>>2277019
And had a much worse army, nation, and officers. And unlike Alexander lacked the will to commit to any campaign. Just flitted about the med like he had ADHD.

>>2277035
>Rome became the greatest empire in the history of mankind
By what metric? Why does it beat Alexander or Han China or the Mongol Empire or the USSR or the British Empire?

File: 15000103_1021966794615978_871461296420548204_o.jpg (270KB, 1600x1069px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 1600x1069px

>>2273647
Decimation is the method that got the Romans to kill sparticus and his armies. Shut the fuck up, moron.

File: mark antony.png (230KB, 486x618px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 486x618px

>>2277044
By the metric of that it erased half of europe's identities and replaced them with varients of it's own, while establishing a massively powerful economy and military for 800 years (1,800 if you want to count the eastern empire as well).

>"Why does it beat Alexander, or Han china or the mongol empire, or the USSR"

Because it actually brought mass propserity for centuries and wasn't a meme that fell apart after one man died, or a handful of decades to a century.

>>2277063
*vairants

>>2277063
>>2277064
Romaboos are literally retarded

>>2261249
>As soon as they meet "equal" nations, like the persians, they got smashed.

What is it with this board and revisionism?

>>2277063
>Because it actually brought mass propserity for centuries
More like making an increasingly shrinking number of Italian landholders insanely rich while overall wages and trade declined into almost nothing.

>>2261249
>They fought most against primitive barbarians and decadent Greeks.
And Cartage
And all the successor states of Alexander's empire
And Persia
And the Huns
>As soon as they meet "equal" nations, like the persians, they got smashed.
Not true at all, Rome obliterated the Persians in all but one failed campaign.

>>2261249
>>2263108
>he does not know about the concept of supply lines
fighting pathians and persians at their own front yard is a tremendous feat

File: 1485097450653.png (8KB, 112x112px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 112x112px

>>2263165
>Early medieval France alone could take over rome at it's peak under a year.
Could early medieval France field hundreds of thousands of professional soldiers?

>>2261249
Bait

>>2277048
And, again, it was almost never used. Suck a thousand cocks, anon.

File: Smugasfuck.jpg (22KB, 300x350px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 300x350px

>>2277063
Meanwhile Central Asia still hasn't recovered from Mongol conquest

>>2277076
Not that Anon, but

Though some landowners got insanely rich from the empire, the overall quality of life of those in the empire did measurably improve. Consumer goods were widespread, a lot of places had monetary market economies and pretty much everybody had access to long distance trade routes.

>>2277076
>More like making an increasingly shrinking number of Italian landholders insanely rich while overall wages and trade declined into almost nothing.
Archaeology does nothing to back up this Caesarian claim. While there were more huge latifundia, medium and small ones increased at an even greater rate.

>>2261249
>>2277102
Gauls weren't "primitive barbarians". Neither were Iberians. There's a reason Rome copied their tech in regards to warfare.

>>2278067
The number of shipwrecks in the Mediterranean was in constant decline since the first century.

>>2278070
Aren't they just thought of as barbarians because their settlements were made out of wood and therefore decomposed, giving the impression that they essentially lived rough?

>>2278553
Further proof the Republic did nothing wrong and Caesar ruined everything

>>2278561
That and biased Roman historians, and the lack of Gallic counterpoints due to the deliberate destruction of the Druids.

>>2278553
>The number of shipwrecks in the Mediterranean was in constant decline since the first century.


This is a common misconception actually. Yes, long distance trade declined. This doesn't reflect everybody becoming too poor to buy shit. What actually happened is that markets became more localised and people could get their goods from local market towns instead of having to import stuff from overseas. Plus, the taste for wine which was like 80% of all long distance goods in the early empire, deteriorated massively. Oh, and as the frontier zones turned from shitty virtual wastelands into prosperous centres filled with cities, there was nowhere near as much need for overseas trade.

>>2279256
>>2278553

didn't land trade replace sea trade too?

>>2267381
Rome wasn't Destroyed by barbarians, it was the Jews... oh wait.

>>2267381
Gonna bite the bait here and demonstrate why anyone who tries to downplay the Romans' achievements is a contrarian asshat trying desperately to fit in.
The Romans, circa 2-1 Century BCE consistently BTFO Mediterranian powers that were equal too, or greater in strength and imperial advancement than they.
They repelled the invasion of Phyrrus with an army of farmers, then took that army and defeated the Greeks too They defeated the Carthiginians at sea, a famous naval power by just saying fuck it, and stapling boats together with a big fuck off hammer.
By the time Rome was a great power (overcoming several civil wars whilst maintaining its provinces) at the time of Augustus, no empire could possibly challenge them. The Parthians, to their credit did a great job at halting Roman expansion, but at that point, did they even need more territory?

>>2277585
Highly debatable. Many would argue that Rome was at its most prosperous during the earliest years of the late Republic if adjusted for population.

In any case, Rome after the crisis of the third century was a POS.