I know most people probably consider it a meme, but the Roman Empire is just the absolute fucking tops.
Can we have a Roman thread?
>Why was Hannibal the most incompetent general Rome ever fought?
What is the best Roman armor type and why is it lorica segmentata?
Late Antiquity Rome > Medieval Rome > Republican Rome > Ridiculous Classic Hollywood Imperial Rome
Yes I'm sure that those 64 years were the height of Phoenician civilization. What could Carthage have done without that general who drained them of their resources and lost them the final battle?
It's not like Hannibal was born towards the end of Carthaginian dominance and existence, right? It's a good thing Hannibal came along, he probably doubled the life span of Carthage with those 64 years!
>chore to put on and take off, often required help from another guy
>tons of moving parts that rust and break in the field
>hard to store, (with Hamata you just roll the shirt up and put it with the rest of your kit)
>hard to breathe in if tied too tightly
It looks nice and I guess it technically was the "first plate armor", but Segmentata was pretty shit overall.
Uh, Hannibal was a brilliant general who defeated the Romans, the greatest military might of the time, several times.
I mean he's even associated with that famous quote that sums it up perfectly: "Of a truth the gods do not give the same man everything: you know how to gain a victory, Hannibal, but you do not know how to make use of it."
I'm fairly sure you would lose your love for segmentata after the first few times you had clean and polish it. Lorica hamata is easier to repair, naturally resistant to rust, and you can clean it with a bag of sand
Reminder that the Roman Empire did not end in 1453, it only changed religions again, and lasted right up to 1922
The only difference is how being the 98.5% meant dying before entering your 50's, while today that same 98.5% can live a comfy long life
There is literally no reason to be a commie in the 21st century
I just like to walk into grocery stores.
Any student of history should love walking into grocery stores.
>all those spices
>all those different meats
>all those vegetables
>modern food science
>all so cheap
It blows my mind.
Socialists in the 21st century are fucking morons.
Well, in the end the socialists win.
Because in the end, the entire workforce will be machines.
Marx saw the future, but he saw the future wrong.
True socialism will come about when the factories and the offices no longer need people to do their work.
>we the culture now
You seem very confused.
>Because in the end, the entire workforce will be machines.
That's a hell of a statement to make without any qualifications. Industrial engineers would have something to say about that.
And what you are referring to is known to economists as a "post-scarcity" scenario. Has nothing to do with socialism.
>True socialism will come about when
No. No. No.
board is named histories & humanities, i guess lifestyle through past present and future history is on topic
The only reason we have all these people going on about gay rights tranny rights dont hurt peoples feelings no insults etc etc is because life is so fucking good now. Even a poor person has food water and a home and probably a tv and electronics. People don't know how fucking good they have it.
When life gets this good we can tackle the problems of peoples feelings. I guess.
He was a peerless tactician but a shitty politician. His Carthaginian "superiors" dicked him over because they feared his influence and he failed to bring in potential allies from Greece/Asia Minor who would have loved to fuck with Rome. Because of these factors he lacked a viable endgame. Also quit being contrarian Hannibal was the greatest general of his age. Africanus (who is admittedly pretty badass) only got him because Carthage used too many mercenaries (Hannibal's followers from Spain were super loyal but the troops back in North Africa were not) and he was able to bribe a huge chunk of Hannibal's army at Zama.
>tfw 5 years of a lost war brought 30 years of economic boom and 20 of stability to my country
WW3 when lads?
WW3 would see the U.S. infrastructure completely wrecked through cyberattacks and mass casualties and devestation from cruise missiles.
You remember that blimp that got loose last week over Pennsylvania?
Do you know what its purpose was?
WW3 will be devastating for every country involved. USA included.
I'm not making any sort of anti-American statement. War has become extremely potent.
Rome was looking to snuff out Carthage for good, they were looking for any reason whatsoever to attack the Carthaginians after the first Punic War. If Hannibal had come along Carthage would have lasted much longer. If Carthage's elite weren't so fucking scared of Hannibal's influence, Carthage might have been able to force Rome to concede some sort of more equal armstice instead of getting blown the fuck out and left sitting quietly in the corner until Rome came to finish them off in the Third Punic "War"
The Numidians were incredibly important, nearly a third of Hannibal's troops. Most Carthaginian soldiers were mercenaries unlike the citizen-soldiers of Rome. This would turn out to be a major flaw. From the Numidians perspective, they would get loads of money while virtually guaranteeing they would be on the winning side. An easy decision for mercenaries compared to citizens who would be betraying their own people if put in the same circumstance.
>>Why was Hannibal the most incompetent general Rome ever fought?
It's not his fault the Roman client states didn't rebel like he planned. Going after Rome, itself, would be the most difficult thing he'd ever done in his career, and that's saying a LOT.
early rome is a wild ride though
>3 samnite wars
>2 punic wars
>dat mid 4th century expansion
>war with veii
so much nigga
Early Rome is best Rome. I have a total man crush on Augustus but I'll admit going with Emperors slowly turned everything to shit.
Seriously though: Augustus for immortal God-Emperor of Mankind.
I don't remember Centurion that much. I saw it as a kid and all I remember was the legions got their standard back from the barbarians in one big, grossly inaccurate Hollywood slog fest. You're probably right, though. HBO's Rome and Gladiator are the only decent ones that I remember.
Segmentata was basically a bitch. It is more expensive and needs vigilant maintenance. I think the production time is about the same for a mail like hamata, but mail will last a long time (like a century) because the rings are resistant to rusting because of their movement and segmentata requires more skilled work. Armor is also tailored towards the enemies Rome was fighting, for example during the Dacian wars extra armor was added to shoulders and necks because falxmen were penetrating that area and basically cutting off legionary's heads. The military doctrines used also change the armor, the segmentata is associated with the shorter gladius while the early mails are used by the longer hasta spearmen and the later mails were used by spatha wielders. Apparently when you're up close and personal you need better armor like the segmentata and don't need the range of movement the mails allow. The other thing is that segmentata did not completely replace hamata, it supplemented it for a couple of centuries.
tl;dr: lorica hamata, segmentata, hakuna matata.
>Why was Hannibal the most incompetent general Rome ever fought?
Hannibal by all accounts was extremely skilled and very successful. If Carthage had actually reinforced his troops and provided him with support perhaps the Roman Empire might not have lasted, it's a very real possibility OP.
>Most Carthaginian soldiers were mercenaries unlike the citizen-soldiers of Rome.
Not coincidentally, Rome's reliance on German mercenaries to do their fighting when they lacked the population and volunteers to do it themselves led to their own collapse. Mercs will turn on you, you always need troops who are loyal to form the backbone of your army.
Maybe the crossing of the Alps was a bit of a gamble, but come on. Hannibal did not besiege Rome because he lacked the excess resources to commit to such a grueling maneuver. Maximus's strategy of scorched Earth made most of Italy inhospitable for a large army and the anti-Barcid Council of Nobles back in Carthage refused Hannibal's requests for more men and materials for a prolonged siege and assault on Rome.
Nah op is just a stupid Romanboo. A great many Romanboo's admit how fucking good of a general Hannibal was to face and repeatedly beat the best military force in the Mediterranean at the time.
Same deal with Spartacus, Romans liked to glorify their enemies in an odd form of pride.
Germans and Bretons too, the average well-fed Roman was not a manlet compared to these pale ass savages in body paint, but it sounded far cooler and inspiring to say they were giants.
Isn't that the spartacus rebellion?
I watch remember reading some franco-belgian comics when I was young called Alix and most the slaves who rebelled were fighting naked because they didn't have any armor whatsoever.
why did they stop making them with that flap on the forehead? it looks like it would absorb a blow far worse without being any cheaper/simpler.
also did these silly armor sleeves exist?
>also did these silly armor sleeves exist?
well yes, gladiators used them, than when guys in your pic where fucking Roman shit up with their backwards katana the Romans decided that maybe using them to fight them might be a good idea.
they disappear a bit after that, than come back for their heavy armoured cavalry slightly near the end of the western Roman empire, the middle east used them as well and later the ming dynasty in china, though theirs didn't seem to cover as much of the arm.
oh, i understand gladiators had those, though i was sure they were mostly cloth and leather rather than shinny, tightly formed gauntlets like that.
i wonder if there's any specific instance where they were made en masse for actual Gladiators to use. It looks like something too expensive to put on top of an already expensive get up like the Legionaries had.
>it looks like something too expensive to put on top of an already expensive get up like the Legionaries had
that's probably why they mostly stopped using it for a time after the dacians where taken care of, well that and the added weight.
either way it does pop back up again as shown in the Notitia Dignitatum though that was hundreds of years later.
Scipio was everything hannibal was and more. The toast to hannibal's bread, the wine to hannibal's grape, the tree to hannibal's seed. He took all the knowledge from hannibal and applied it to Rome, setting the example for roman ingenuity and helping to forge an empire that would last countless generations
>tfw when The Culture won't happen in your lifetime
Feels bad man.
There are/were a stupid number of successor states to Rome, including...but not limited to:
Holy Roman Empire (and by extension the German Empire...some might also argue Nazi Germany due to their appropriation of Roman imagery)
don't forget Spain under the Visigoths, tack on Mexico by extension if you'd like (they've at least kept the bestiarii tradition alive)
As one of the most Romanized provinces, Spain is probably one of it's closest succesors, if anything, because they kept up the work done in laws and justice Romans had kickstarted. Visigoths and later the crowns of Leon and Castilla were really the only ones doing that work in Europe apart from the Byzantines themselves.
The way America was colonized by the Spanish mirrors the system Roman expansion used pretty well.
Greeks took all their tech and knowledge from the sumerians aswell.
Even their hoplite formations were an immitation of sumerian tactits
You do know that there were a lot of other civilizations that came about after the Sumerians, right? The Sumerian civilization wasn't even a thing by 1700 BC. The Greeks had no contact with them, and they certainly didn't take "all their tech and knowledge from the Sumerians". Now, they were definitely influenced by later Levantine civilizations, which were in turn influenced by non-Sumerian, mostly Semitic Mesopotamian civilizations who were heavily influenced by the Sumerians, but your statement is hilariously false and I really hope this is just b8 that I fell for.
>You do know that there were a lot of other civilizations that came about after the Sumerians
The akkadians and mostly other semitic cultures that conquered the sumerian city-states and then later expanded in most of the levant. It's how the knowledge of the sumerians reached the greeks in the first place. So really, the statement still stands and there's no shame to admit that everything began with Sumeria.
It's the very first recorded civilization on planet earth afterall.
Your claim that Greeks stole everything from Sumerians is both unfounded and demonstrably false. Greece was a very advanced society in the cities such as Athens and Corinth were pioneers in mathematics and science. Their appropriation of some ideas the Sumerians began is possibly true, but they reached their conclusions on their own. That is like saying Western civilization stole Skyscrapers from the Romans because they pioneered advanced engineering.
By the time they had sewage systems and running water etc they still wouldn't have heard of the sumerians.
You have to understand in those times they didn't have google where they could just look shit up, they had to actually go to another part of the world to find out anything about another culture. By the time they arrived in the middle east and first set eyes on any type of sumerian architecture or technology Rome was already at it's peak.
And what makes you think there was no contact between the greek city-states and the sumerian city-states?
The sumerians had commercial and cultural contact with places like Egypt and as far as the Indus Valley civilization. The greeks were even closer to them than that since they were in constant contact with the hitties, which were...suprise surpise, always in contact with messopotamia and the caucasus region.