>Raping sabine women
>Destroying carthage 3 times
>Spreading eternal glory and civilisation throughout Europa
It's a ROME GENERAL. Filthy Punics, Greeks, Gauls and other ancients welcome, but only if you post "AVE IMPERATOR" in this thread. "Kingdom" of Armenia not welcome.
who else here /Augustus/?
>understood that the virtue and austerity of roman women was a key pillar of roman society. Enacted laws to protect these ideals
>expanded rome on all fronts
>knew when to let the senate take care of things and when to step in and make shit happen
>encouraged speech against him, knew that if crowds could talk shit he wouldn't get hit.
>best bromance in history with Marcus Agrippa
Literally the BEST patriarch, GOAT tier. Only Trajan can compete.
This thread displays obvious political undertones and therefore shouldn't be on /his/.
I agree that we should have discussions on this board (preferably without name-calling). However, the bias of this board is already shifting towards /pol/, meaning that rational discussion will soon be impossible here. Just like it is on /pol/
>you will never be this fucking roman
it's called a joke friendo. Nobody on /his/ is going to be coming up with any profound insights, 90 percent of history is revisionist ideology anyway. You're just buttmad because it's not yours.
Besides, i think the Romans, raised by wolves, are inherently anathema to safe space politics, don't you?
Or, here's an even better idea - you contribute interesting well thought out discussion and see what happens. So far it seems complaining has bought you only resentment and disdain. Or go back to your lyre and wine, Nero, i don't care.
i'm going to dump pictures of roman architecture that i find particularly schway.
this is the bridge in Cordoba, Spain. Cordoba later became an Arabic center of learning circa 1000AD, famous for it's university. t-thanks rome.
This one is one of the last remaining pieces of Trajan's bridge. The bridge was one of the longest in the ancient world, with massive gatehouses on either side. The bridge was a not-so-subtle threat to the then unruly Dacia; don't be a prick, Rome has a bridge and could easily march over the Danube and ruin your day.
Trajan was a particular talent at this, having erected many bridges in his time. The maps of the "Roman empire at it's greatest extent" are all thanks to Trajan's relentless expansionary conquests.
Ironically, pleb provincials made some of the best Roman emperors.
Alas, Dacia did not listen.
Here's an aqueduct in Segovia, Spain. Spain was one of the first provinces Rome conquered, but resisted for hundreds of years. There was a big problem with Lusitani rebels in the west that Rome had a hard time putting down. Nothing like the terrifying Germans in the north, but certainly a thorn in Rome's side.
>90 percent of history is revisionist ideology anyway
That just proves that you get your information from the wrong places.
>you contribute interesting well thought out discussion and see what happens
Before any kind of discussion can be held, the condition under which it shall take place must be defined. Having a discussion in a very biased environment will never yield objective results.
Therefore, we must first try to eliminate extreme bias from this board
Oh look, it's the faggot boy emperor Elagabalus! his hobbies included dressing up as a woman at local whorehouses and being paid to get bummed by the men he desired. Naturally, his reign was terminated at the tender age of 18.
Jesus fucking christ, it's fourchan. if you wanted academic rigorous history, or were god damn good at it, you'd be in a university department somewhere getting paid 30k a year to be keked by your wife.
Instead, you do it here, for free. And don't give me this "wrong sources" garbage - nobody is free from the lens of ideology.
Here's the roman Pantheon. imagine constructing this out of shitty roman concrete a few thousand years ago. Truly the romans' STEM autism was unparalleled.
Look at the inside of this thing. The whole chamber is constructed around this one gorgeous shaft of light.
hearty kek. If only the Alexandrine successor states weren't such dumb keks this never would have happened. Look at Ptolemaic Egypt and Cleopatra - it was no better.
Also, check out the sticky and take it to your heart:
>/his/ is not /pol/, and Global Rule #3 is in effect. Do not try to treat this board as /pol/ with dates. Blatant racism and trolling will not be tolerated, and a high level of discourse is expected
Holy shit - no. There's a line between striving to be objective and being a fucking autist you twit. If you want to be objective, do it, and hold others to that standard, go! nobody is stopping you! i am just making a fun thread so people who enjoy ancient history can share their feels and things they like about it. So far i have posted a whole fuckload of roman architecture, you have posted complaints.
Nut up or shut up.
Pic related, my face when your autistic derail bullshit.
There is no racism here. There is no trolling. There is a historical joke about the kingdom of Armenia, reflecting the roman sentiment at the time given Armenia was the second biggest political power and ruler of the east. Seriously, if you're not going to contribute, leave.
And just because i hate not posting content, here's a hispanian sabre, the most based sword of the ancient world.
Does anyone have an opinion or whether Alexander's conquests spread the Kopis to indonesia giving rise to the kukri, and something similar happened to spain? Or was it convergent evolution, realising more force could be delivered with a forward sweeping blade.
Gibbon is based, i don't know what else to recommend that isn't primary. Maybe ask "academic rigour complaint" anon.
Actually, scratch that anon, i've heard I, Claudius is great - though in novel style. Maybe look into it?
The Senate and the people are fine, but sometimes you need one man to do what a committee cannot. That is to say, you need vision.
Pic related, based hadrian, protector of rome, builder of walls, philhellene and beard populariser.
Huh, I guess you're right
Loggia at the Vatican (Cappricio)
I agree with you, it's funny isn't it, that the most lauded, most "philosopher king" emperor fucked up one of the best emperor dynasties of the entire empire by appointing his vain shitty son Commodus.
We may never know what he was thinking, but meditations is a pretty good book so, 50/50.
I mean sure, but you sort of had that anyway with the adoption scheme. Like Marcus Aurelius and his brother were adopted at the age of 8 or 10 or something, and so it was with most adoptive emperors. The son thing just kind of opens up the possibility for corruption because they're your son - you're always going to treat them differently and perhaps not in a way that befits a future emperor because of the biological ties. Such was the case with Aurelius and Commodus i think, and look how that shit turned out. It's also much easier to decide /not/ to give your adoptive heir the throne, it's like, well they're shit, but big deal? Plus i guess there's probably less entitlement there.
semi related, the Mainz gladius is really cool isn't it? I love the soft flange into the diamond shaped leaf tip. Really gets me wet.
Just on the marcus aurelius example - his brother gambled and was impulsive - and accordingly he was given the less authoritative position as a "second" to Marcus. This is possible largely because there's no biological ties there.
Thomas Cole incoming
Personally i think Carlin is pretty bad for history- but i've only listened to his mongolian crap, which was kind of bleeding hearted. The History of Rome guy is way better. Very thorough, very detailed, and some funny dry humour that catches you off guard.
This one! the first recordings are not so great, and he takes a little bit to hit his zenith but man does he hit it. He is a great overview of rome from the beginning to the end, and goes into quite a bit more detail than Dan "feelings" Carlin when it comes to justificaitons and reasoning. Not that i have anything against Carlin, i can just feel his ideology a little more saliently when i listen to him.
Let's talk about the Roman provinces. I'll start with Britannia.
How was Hadrian's Wall manned? Did they get frequent attacks from the Picts?
How many soldiers do you think patrolled the wall on any given day? Where was the nearest Roman fort or city to receive supplies and reinforcements?
Were there any famous battles fought there? Did the Romans often go beyond the wall to try and expand into Pict land, or did it mostly act as a form of defence?
Why and when did construction of the Antonine Wall begin?
Did the Britons, Saxons or Normans get much use of these fortifications after the Romans had left?
Hadrian once flew into a rage and gouged out his secretaries eye. He immediately felt remorse and asked the man how he could make it up to him, and he replied "please can I have my eye back"
i've wondered, was the roman colonization of the south the reason that the north is now a cultural wasteland? Was Rome's Londonium this influential?
As i understand it, the wall carved up the territory of one of the more influential tribes and was used mostly as a symbol that ROME IS HERE. For instance, the plating of the wall in white marble suggests that it was intended at least partially as a symbol of roman hegemony.
You should read some of the Vindolanda tablets. Personal letters written on wood excavated from a camp alongside the wall. People asking for friends to send them oysters, soldiers' wives sending birthday invitations, etc. Maximum comfy. We all have this image of Gladiator in our heads, but the colonial outposts would be more like British India in their day-to-day operations, typically.
>was the roman colonization of the south the reason that the north is now a cultural wasteland? Was Rome's Londonium this influential?
most of the reasons why the north is so deprived compared to the south are far more recent than the Romans
the Roman influence on Britain is actually quite overstated, I have heard people say that only something like 10% of Britons were ever "romanised". Supposedly Roman influence was played up during the era of the British empire because it made a nice historical narrative
>the Romans come and spread their imperial ways in Britian
>centuries later Britain adopts the Roman mantle and creates the Empire
>i've wondered, was the roman colonization of the south the reason that the north is now a cultural wasteland? Was Rome's Londonium this influential?
When you look at the places Rome colonised more deeply, like Londonium and Bath, you see architecture not just preserved from Roman times, but architecture centuries later inspired by that original Roman stone and marblework to create the beautiful English south we know today. It's all built upon ideas the Roman architecture inspired in them.
The North doesn't really have that, and as a result it's a grim industrial Victorian horror, its cities inspired by an era of child labour and industry, coal and smog.
Yeah no, basically every empire has claimed to be rome at some point, even confusingly Germany which was NEVER fucking rome, but oh well.
i think it would be interesting to see though. History can have weird knock on effects you know - miss one milestone and you're irrelevant for a long time.
underrated post. It's crazy to think of living in medieval Europe, being basically a tiny fief king and seeing these massive ruins of someone who came before. Artwork better than any you could produce, buildings on a scale alien to you - and trying to imagine what such an empire was like - and if even such an empire could have existed.
>Last of the 5 Good Emperors
>Huge proponent of Stoicism
>Duty, Loyalty, and Restrained
>Embodiment of Good Roman Virtue
>Achieved title "the Philosopher" and labeled "A Philosopher King"
Sure it's rather a common conception as well as a given. Still Marcus Aurelius was quite the Emperor.
>appointed commodus who fucked everything up as his heir
>spent his whole reign fighting losing battles on the borders
I like Marky Mark but he has some issues.
How exactly did the Romans spread Latin and their calendars into Europe so effectively? There's hardly any remnants still used of what customs European barbarians used before they adopted Roman culture any more.
Did we use shitty moon runes or something?
Why did Hannibal bring the fight to Rome if he was going to be unable to secure campaign victory despite military victory? I suppose he could have thought that Rome would give in and he would be able to circumvent Carthaginian politics, but wouldn't fighting in Hispania be a better idea?
kebab is a catchall term for brown people. turks aren't an ethnicity, you bet your ass some of the tribes the romans fought eventually became turkish though. Between the roxolani, the scythians, armenia and the syrians.
Hannibal's plan was the shake the faith of Rome's Italian allies by shattering Rome's image through military defeats, and then enlist their aid in defeating Rome. The plan would never have worked if he wasn't fighting in Italy.
In this Hannibal was moderately succesful, in that many of the south Italian tribes and cities went over to his support (which was why he was able to operate in Italy for so long), along with a number of northern tribes (plus the Gauls in Italy), but failed to win over a number of key central italian allies.
pic related is Rome and her Italian allies
basically. Even after all the defeats, the defection of allies, Rome and her allies still had twice the manpower pool that Carthage and her allies had, and unlike Carthage it wasn't split up all over the place and built upon unreliable allies who didn't want to leave their homes.
Romans were niggers..
Everything admirable and interesting about the ancient world stems from the Greeks.
Roman history isn't even interesting, it is clear from how and what the people who are interested in it write, that it has the same sort of appeal that Jackass on MTV used to have.
i think this is the plot of the movie gladiator and not so much what happened in real life. It's possible but not likely.
Greeks were the cultural furnace. Rome had the balls, the architectural and organisational clout to spread it across europe. Don't be buttmad, Rome did what alexander never could - forged a lasting empire.
Byzantium was like a series of Rot though. Such a shame became of Byzantium. 1000 years of Rome and although Byzantium lasted another 1000 years, it was like watching an old person on life support whither away.
anyone learning Latin here?
It's my first semester as a freshman in college and its fucking hell, I feel like I we breezed by way to much.
I did it at school. Found it really easy at first, but gave up trying in later years and fell behind before finally giving up. Should have stuck with it, it gave great marks and in the last years we studied lots of interesting writings like Caesar's campaigns