Romans = great warriors???

The Romans were well known for their toughness. In the begining of their power, it was not their organization that made them victors, it was their ability to fight better than their opponents. Even up to the Punic Wars, the most prevalent Roman tactic consisted of hurling two javelins and sending the hastati and princeps against the enemy, and if all else failed, the triarii. It was only during the time of Hannibal that they realized more complex tactics were required. This was one of the reason why Scipio Africanus was able to defeat Hannibal at Zama.

Also, the true testament of how strong an empire is does not come from its size, but their ability to stay an empire for long periods of time. Sure the Mongols were unstoppable, but for how long? The same could be said for all other short-lived empires. The Romans were able to keep their borders for centuries. 

first off.

if you read history at all, all great army suffer a major defeat, that does not mean they are bad army or stock.

The Romans fighting diverse cultures. The Chinese are fighting each other much more often.

I do not understand why you think that the Romans had a bad army if they never been conquered for over 1000 years. there were the longest empire ever in history so that got to tell you something.

second off

the Romans were soldiers not warriors there is a big difference.

Warriors were like gladiators or samurais while the Roman legion are soldiers.

soldiers fought like a machine, while the Warriors fought on their own, soldiers were more like engineers they�ve built forts trenches ditches and other things, while the warrior didn�t do none of this major spend their time perfecting your skills and not fighting as a whole.

and pleas do not bring up the Hans into this, because when the Huns came, Rome was already at its weakest, the Empire was fallen apart already, but keep In mind, no Chinese dynasty lasted longer or other empires lasted as long as the Romans did, and is not including the Byzantines or the holy Roman empire.

Some of Rome's victories belong to the very barbarians they latter fought with,and were later overun with.Rome was one of the greatest empires in history,really depends on your depiction of great.I say,they were not great.It is just an opinion.Sure,they established an administrative system still used today,and were one of the great civilizations.To me,the romans were no more than barbarious,arrogant fools.

They enslaved thousands of people,because either they did't believe in their religion,because they were pagans.Sure,I know many Empires had slaves,but these guys took it to the next level.Its basically their fault the founder of Christianity died,they had gladitorial combats,killed and crucified those who didn't believe in what they believed,also their church was corrupt.Maybe to many they were great,but to me,they were not.

However,they were nonetheless effective warriors,like most giant,longstanding empires had,and their civilization lasted for centuries.They were great,in a sense of military and administrative accomplishments,but not in common sense.

  that's why they are barbarians...

[and pleas do not bring up the Hans into this, because when the Huns came, Rome was already at its weakest, the Empire was fallen apart already, but keep In mind, no Chinese dynasty lasted longer or other empires lasted as long as the Romans did, and is not including the Byzantines or the holy Roman empire.[/QUOTE]

Say sth off the topic.  It is not fair to compare  the lifespan of Roman Empire with any Chinese dynasty, because their system of heirdom is so different.  In a view of Chinese History, almost every Roman emperor after Augustus would be a founder of a new dynasty. In imperial China, the crown must be inherited by the emperor's son or (very rarely) his younger brother, unless he has no offspring, which was scarce because the Chinese emperor usually has thousands of wives and concubines lol.  In some dynasties, the crown could only belong to his eldest son. In the case that the heir of the emporer is not the late emporer's son, even he is a kindred guy, it would be counted by Chinese Historian that a new dynasty is being set up.  However, the Roman emperors usually had no kin with their precessors. To compare the two great power, if you really wanna to do that, the China Empire should be as a whole instead a single Dynasty. Then the Chinese will be the winner, whose history should be from the beginning of the Qin Dynasty (246 BC) to the end of the Qing Dynasty (1911), more than two millennia.

And BTW, to my knownadge, in the era of the Han Dynasty (206 BC-220), Roman Empire was also at its height. 

Funny you mention this, because many people annoyingly insist on this matter, but the fact is Christ was supposed to and had to die! Otherwise there wouldn't be any crosses on the Churches or on the necks of the believers. So if you still feel sorry for Jesus' crucification, you've got only the Almighty to blame for.

Actually, they crucified thieves and such. It wasn't a matter of belief (Romans were the most practical and tolerant you can find in Ancient and Modern times), it was a matter of order and law.