Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Ancient Armies Posted: 07-Nov-2005 at 17:50 |
I have that exact picture on another website, I like it to gotta hand it to the Romans they knew how to make their soldiers look damn cool
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Nov-2005 at 21:42 |
|
|
Lord Pork
Immortal Guard
Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Israel
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Nov-2005 at 10:15 |
yap...plus I think the roman coulter was more aggressive and militaristic then the Chinese, killing and destroying the barbarians is in their blood
|
When the situation is obscure, attack !
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Nov-2005 at 10:38 |
The Romans could barely had developed any different, their very existance had been under huge threat from the barbarians in northern Italy (Gauls) when Rome was still in its infancy, its little wonder the Romans hated them so much.
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Nov-2005 at 10:50 |
Originally posted by Heraclius
The Romans could barely had developed any
different, their very existance had been under huge threat from the
barbarians in northern Italy (Gauls) when Rome was still in its
infancy, its little wonder the Romans hated them so much. |
Well said, Rome developed from a very early age into a highly
militaristic society. Positioned inbetween some of the greatest powers
of the day, it could (and did) draw on each to combine the best
experiences in war into one massively effective military machine. With
Hannibal's failed bid to destroy Rome the militaristic culture added to
its psyche an uncompromising determination to dominate and conquer.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Nov-2005 at 22:55 |
Actually, Roman army did not carried the same armour and shield every time. They wore Plates, Chain mail, and sometimes even fought without armour, especially after Marius Reforms, there were many "Little" generals that they had no enough money to support all those armours, sword, shields and pilum, and also helmet.
I do not wanna say that Roman army was weak, it was, then it couldnt invade so much land, but it was not every time in the same "cloth" and discipline:
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Nov-2005 at 23:08 |
And also, dear brothers who says that Huns were "nothing", please, go and read, and find especially books that were written to Huns.
Huns were one of the greates ancestors of Turks, Huns were nomads, who came and shake Europe, defeated Alans, Slavyans, Germans, Goths which Roman Empire could edefeat some of them even in 100 year
http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/oldwrld/armies/ huns.html
This link may help u to understand only their army, and then to decide yourcelf that there were really a guys which could shake Europe in its time
And also, When Attila lost Chalons (KAtalaun) He even had no any cavalry, or he had, but before the battle he saw that the place that Aeti chose was commonly unuseful for cavalry, and if a hun is not on the back of the horse, then he is not s warrior, And that is why Attila lost that battle which lasted 2 days.
The next year Attila, with 150 000 hun cavalry, came untill Po river, in the North of the Peninsula of Italia, and Pope LEOthe 4th came to him and told not to destroy Rome, but Rome will pay u 2 baskets of gold, which was nothing for Rome, even in its time to come end.
That Nomad guy that u call "barbarian" if u ganna go and read the writings of Roman hitorian PUBILIUS, then u will understand that he was not a BARBARIAN
He had the carpets and the bath, that even Pubilius did not know how to explain to his Emperor
But I still do not wanna say that Roman army was bad
|
|
Lord Pork
Immortal Guard
Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Israel
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Nov-2005 at 06:06 |
ohhhhh.....Peleas ! that is such rubish hhhh.....
The Romans could win all this petfull aponents ....but for what?
they really didn't need more land they allready had an empire as big as the known world why should they lose more soldiers and man to conquer more useless land?
they didn't conquerd the german tribe's to the north beacuse they didn't invide to much and the roman army from time to time did campigns in the north but just to kill some tribs so they will not try to invied.....
if Rome really but really needed thes waste lands they could easly crash all the berabarians...
and the huns had alot of victorys at first only beacuse the roman army and leadership was weak at the time...if some strong leader like Giulio Cesare were agains Atila....the huns would have been detroyed...
hak...even if i were in control things would look much diffrently in Europ
|
When the situation is obscure, attack !
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Nov-2005 at 05:39 |
Roman armies were the best by far.
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Nov-2005 at 16:18 |
Originally posted by Bayazit
And also, dear brothers who says that Huns were "nothing", please, go and read, and find especially books that were written to Huns.
Huns were one of the greates ancestors of Turks, Huns were nomads, who came and shake Europe, defeated Alans, Slavyans, Germans, Goths which Roman Empire could edefeat some of them even in 100 year
http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/oldwrld/armies/ huns.html
This link may help u to understand only their army, and then to decide yourcelf that there were really a guys which could shake Europe in its time
And also, When Attila lost Chalons (KAtalaun) He even had no any cavalry, or he had, but before the battle he saw that the place that Aeti chose was commonly unuseful for cavalry, and if a hun is not on the back of the horse, then he is not s warrior, And that is why Attila lost that battle which lasted 2 days.
The next year Attila, with 150 000 hun cavalry, came untill Po river, in the North of the Peninsula of Italia, and Pope LEOthe 4th came to him and told not to destroy Rome, but Rome will pay u 2 baskets of gold, which was nothing for Rome, even in its time to come end.
That Nomad guy that u call "barbarian" if u ganna go and read the writings of Roman hitorian PUBILIUS, then u will understand that he was not a BARBARIAN
He had the carpets and the bath, that even Pubilius did not know how to explain to his Emperor
But I still do not wanna say that Roman army was bad
|
Do you and us a favour, give it up already
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|
Justinian
Chieftain
King of Númenor
Joined: 11-Nov-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1399
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Nov-2005 at 18:05 |
Roman armies because of their adaptability and the length of time that they defended the empire effectively. Although a Macedonian army with a strong leader who could use the phalanx and heavy cavalry effectively would be a tough opponent.
|
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
|
PrznKonectoid
Pretorian
Joined: 27-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 186
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Nov-2005 at 19:00 |
Persians hands down, or at least under the effective leadership of Kuroush or Dariush.
People do not understand the actual scope of what these guys did. Kuroush was the first to create a super-empire! Sure others did, but they followed in his footsteps.
Also when Dariush ascended the Throne, almost every satrap revolted, he didn't even have a loyal home. But he won every province back !! On top of that Dariush expanded into Scythia, Thrace, a large part of Greece (even though the Greeks are depicted as victors by their biased historians, the Persians did win many battles), as well as parts of India.
The persians, with either Kuroush or Dariush at the helm, could take on anyone.
|
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Nov-2005 at 09:11 |
Originally posted by PrznKonectoid
Persians hands down, or at least under the effective leadership of Kuroush or Dariush.
People do not understand the actual scope of what these guys did.
Kuroush was the first to create a super-empire! Sure others did, but
they followed in his footsteps.
Also when Dariush ascended the Throne, almost every satrap revolted,
he didn't even have a loyal home. But he won every province back !!
On top of that Dariush expanded into Scythia, Thrace, a large part of
Greece (even though the Greeks are depicted as victors by their
biased historians, the Persians did win many battles), as well as
parts of India.
The persians, with either Kuroush or Dariush at the helm, could take on anyone. |
While it is true that Cyrus (also we must give credit to Cambyses)
created that massive super-bloc in the Middle East which was so
decisive to history, their advance into Europe was pretty mediocre at
best. In Greece they made a few advanced, but in the end suffered
shattering defeats and before long even an individual city state like
Sparta was actually dominating Persian territory in Anatolia. Their
attack on Thrace was not a victory either, they conquered fairly
useless territory and sustained heavy losses without managing to
capture or defeat their skirmishing enemies. Their attack on Thrace was
as much a victory as Napoleon's conquest of Moscow.
|
|
Alkiviades
Baron
Joined: 01-Sep-2005
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 469
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Nov-2005 at 09:40 |
*cough*skythianexpeditionfiasco*cough*
|
|
PrznKonectoid
Pretorian
Joined: 27-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 186
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Nov-2005 at 17:59 |
Originally posted by Constantine XI
While it is true that Cyrus (also we must give credit to Cambyses) created that massive super-bloc in the Middle East which was so decisive to history, their advance into Europe was pretty mediocre at best. In Greece they made a few advanced, but in the end suffered shattering defeats and before long even an individual city state like Sparta was actually dominating Persian territory in Anatolia. Their attack on Thrace was not a victory either, they conquered fairly useless territory and sustained heavy losses without managing to capture or defeat their skirmishing enemies. Their attack on Thrace was as much a victory as Napoleon's conquest of Moscow.
|
Well know that depends who you give credit too as the historians. Many think the Greeks were biased and really misrepresented a few local victories into huge successes. Herodotus has been proven wrong on numerous occasions (no offense, the Greeks were great historians and their viewpoint is valid, but it is the only one refrenced to). In fact Thrace, from the Persians viewpoint was a grea base for campaigns into Europe. Also we must remember that the Persian captured many Greek islands, cutting off many essential resources from mainland Greece, and that the battle of Marathon was mainly a defense manoveur aimed at weakening the Greeks, not conquering them. There are not many good sources around, especially on the web, but here is an okay one
http://www.livius.org/y/yauna/yauna.html
|
|
|
Kian_the_great
Immortal Guard
Joined: 23-Dec-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Dec-2005 at 12:59 |
Originally posted by Rome
I would say that yes the roman army could beat the Chinese and that the chinese did have many archers and thats how they fought but Rome drilled its armies practiced with them and they had beater decipline then the Chinese. The Chinese never had a full time Pro army. |
Hey MR ROME,
you wathced too much TV, what the TV doesnt tell you is Persians beated Romans ass several times,
not to say romans beated persians, they did, but to say romans could beat anyone, is B.S
read this article
http://www.historynet.com/mhq/blromespersianmirage/
Edited by Kian_the_great
|
Balian of Ibelin: What is Jerusalem worth?
Saladin: Nothing.
Saladin: Everything!
|
|
Iranian41ife
Arch Duke
Joined: 24-Dec-2005
Location: Tajikista
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1832
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Dec-2005 at 13:11 |
the roman army without a doubt. with their tactics, technology, and brains they would have conquered the world! (if they had millions of soldiers ofcourse)
|
|
TheOrcRemix
Consul
Joined: 28-Dec-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 369
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jan-2006 at 21:44 |
The Chinese had superior logistics and technology, as well as a greater supply of manpower, over any of these other civilizations.
allthough...
Rome had a large ammout of displine, and organisation. If the chinese attacked rome, rome would win. If rome attacked china, chine would win.
|
True peace is not the absence of tension, but the presence of justice.
Sir Francis Drake is the REAL Pirate of the Caribbean
|
|
honeybee
Shogun
Joined: 16-Nov-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 240
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Feb-2006 at 23:04 |
"Riiight.
About as fair as the users on a Roman History Forum I visit were being when they came up their Rome vs Han scenario"
I beg to differ, the Roman history forum has absolutely no evidence to back up their claims. If thats not a major difference I don't know what is.
|
|
Maljkovic
Earl
Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Croatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 294
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 13:46 |
What is with this order?
1.Rome
2.Persia
3.Greece
4.China
Hello, are we forgetting who invented gunpowder? Aside for the fact that Chineese army was about 20-30 times bigger then the Roman, this alone would have swayed the odds in their favour.
Persian army was on top while it was led by a master strategist Cyr, after his death it lost to Greeks who were outnumbered 5:1.
|
|