Rome

Italy

ruthlessness, they were hellbent on taking other ppls wealth

athens sparta and all that wanted to subdue other ppl for trade, romans were a bit like nazis, thinking they are better and romanized everything and everywhere, they must have liked to fuck alot since the losses they suffered havent mattered much as they could just raise yet another army when they were defeated

carthage is a good example, originally it was a far more influencal and powerful city state that projected its power across the sea but they were fine with ppl living in relative independance as long as they havent bothered trade, now romans on the other hand waged all their wars with total victory in their mind

>>3173535
They actually weren't
Roman conquest early on was fairly lenient. No occupation or tribute, just a demand that they give Rome x amount of soldiers when asked.
Likewise for romanizing people. Until the social war, Roman citizenship wasn't given out to allies/subjects.

>>3173584
they installed puppet monarchs who could call on a pair of legions at any given time, then that monarch or their offspring eventually put the kingdom under roman protection, annexing it basicly, romanizing didnt have much to do with citizenship, as it was a privilege they were careful to give, what i am saying is they were always on the lookout for expansion, a plan, and the end goal was to annex and seize control of a region for its wealth

File: romanblacked.jpg (3MB, 1248x5557px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1248x5557px

>>3173535
>romans were a bit like nazis
The Romans were not like nazis, but they weren't like modern multiculturalists either.

They would allow foreigners to get ahead but they had to do something for Rome in return first, usually their tribe had to provide auxiliaries or just be a wealthy tax paying province with economic power. Afterwards free men were foederati, assuming they left their village, went to the provincial capital and got written up they gained legal protections. If they became wealthy and married some merchant's fat daughter or could afford to bribe an official they or their sons could easily become full citizens.

>>3173492
Greeks were racists, whereas anyone could become Roman. Romans acted more like the Ottoman Empire.

>>3173635
i havent said a thing about multiculturalism what the fuck why is this american agenda everywhere fuckng ideology driven ppl, their determination and goal oriented politics do have similarities

>>3173492
Roman empire wasnt modern state. It was amount of city-states with symbolic and powerless emperor.

>>3173492
>Also, all the other giant Empires were far more short-lived and collapsed quickly (Alexanders' Empire, Hunnic Empire, Mongol Empire, the Arab Empire also quickly divided itself)

All these civilizations were lead by great conquerors (Alexander the Great, Attila, etc.) who cared little for actually ruling. Conquering a country and running a country are two very different jobs. The Romans knew how to win wars, but they also knew how to run a bureaucracy.

>>3173492
Resolve

Athenian Navy lost? Surrender.

Spartan army destroyed? Surrender.

Roman Legion gone? Raise three more.

There are dozens of instances where Roman defeat was literally assured, but they just said "no" and recruited another 10,000 soldiers. Roman resolve and supporting logistics won every war.

>>3173917
Nowhere in his post was it implied you said anything about multiculturalism. He was giving additional information after responding to your post, you autistic faggot. Also "multiculturalism" is not exclusive to the American political lexicon.

>>3173873
>whereas anyone could become Roman.
Tell that to the Italian nobility who kept trying to shut successful Germanic leaders like Stilicho out

Innovation, diplomacy, and luck

Deciding to embrace the Phalanx but also improve upon it
Deciding to make peace with your neighbors instead of re-enacting the Melian Dialogue
and the fact that Alexander paved the way for Rome to crush "the known world"

If you haven't read it yet, JE Lendon's Soldiers and Ghosts is a great comparitive history of Greek and Roman militaries and what made them most successful in their time. Good detail aside, the Romans had a much more aggressive and nationalistic form of expansion. Greek expansion was more about establishing independent colonies that self governed.

>>3173873
Quite the opposite, abandoning the blood was the primary culprit of the fall

>>3173584
This is really accurate, especially in the early conquests of the Italian states and Greek colonies, the Romans were extremely fair and were more pushed into conquest through war than desired it.

>>3173635
why are there no actual sources for any of this? I suspect afro revisionism.
What are the hard sources for the existence of blacks in the Roman empire?

The only Roman of note to traditionally be depicted as black is Saint Maurice, but I'm sure that his story doesn't appeal to nog revisionists. They are interested in lying about who the administrators of the early empire was only because the common perception that our own ancestors were primitive and because it puts us in a subordinate position. It's a pretty basic type of power fantasy.