Rameses the Great

True, but the game cinematics were that of Rome Total War. The Battle of Raphia, the River Trebia, and The Battle of Asculum, was based on histroical content. Good call though it is accurately playing wise, but not accurate to get your inforamtion from.

How was information of the Cruscades off topic. If anything the thread thing is starting to get on everyones nerves. I think threads are nice and no problem. To some of you, you think that they are vastly overrated. Kind of like me my team skipping baseball practice, everyone gets sick of it after a while, except me. Anyways for people who say the cruscade were not 'holy wars' they are just fooling themselves. Why did they start a 'cruscade' and the Muslims countered with a 'jihad.' You could say that they were just looking for land, but there was a tanacity behind these wars. People seeking redemption and honor for their God, in that time was more important than gold and property. You can go out and fight, but if you have something to fight for than you will fight with a sense of urgency. These wars to us now seem 'barbaric,' but to them it was saying, "hey we are going to giht to the death for our faith, and we're not going to stop until we do what we feel is right. For us to feel sorry about many years later, is ridiculous. Hte idea Christains are not allowed to fight is a bit suicidal. We had to protect ouselves for our religious beliefs and maintain them, so it would not be taken away.

It is historically accurate. I don't know about you guys in other parts of the world, but if you people in America remember decisive battles on the history channel (two yeays ago) it is based on Rome Total War. They depict battles such as Cynophaclese, Asculum, Carrhae, and the River Trebia accurately. THey tell about the history and the battle scenarios are second to none. It shows how you can outsmart you opponent and how to defeat them if you are at a disadvantage. As for the book, its all based on how to play the game...or am I just thinking of the pamphlet. Oh well.

Yeah, Vin Diesel lets keep him with little kid and give him a pacifier :pimp: Anyways why do people hate the Carthaginians and Hannibal so much? Grant it this is a Roman forum and many ROmans are in this forum. Still the Romans attacked the Carthaginians, because they were becoming a 'power.' The Carthaginians never intruded to Roman lands, it was actually the other way around. Doesen't anyone have respect for Hannibal? I mean give the guy a break his father was killed by Romans and many influential people in his life were killed by them too. At the Battle of Cannae, that wasn't brutle it was basic war. As the saying goes, "the conquered weeps, the conquerer is undone." He did what he was supposed to, if he did not kill the people in Cannae they would have came back and killed him!

The Roman generals always had the best cavalymen at his side during battle. If he would go into a battle, they would assist him. The praetorian guard is the advanced form of the early and legionay cohort. The praetorian eventually evolved into the urban cohorts. The practice of having personal bodyguard members is nothing old at all. They would be equipped with the best armour and to make sure they protect the general at all costs. P.S. does anyone have Rome Total War?

Sodom and Gammorrah was burned for immorality and homosexuality. It never happened again in history.

Hey look on the bright side Primus Pilus you do live in the city with the most hardcore people! Besides the Detroit Pistons and Detroit Lions, in baseball of course, are doing a great job.

Thank you very much, I'm still in high school. Obviously you can see that English is not my strong point. But I like you guys because we all share the common bond of loving history. P.S. Gaius Octavius thank you, if you've noticed I always agree with you. You usually in my opinion are right.

I shouldn't worry about it, it's an easy mistake to have made given that English isn't your first language. I am, just a kid I am really emberassed now.

Ok, my bad sorry.

Ok, I'm sorry there I feel emberassed now. At least I'm glad to know there are some people who understand the full aspect of it. You guys are great!

Ok just close this one.

Apologize for what wiping out my culture. The cruscades were not holly wars and what the Christains did were indeed barbaric. But when the Muslims invaded my homeland of Egypt I'll never forget what they did to the Christians and what they are doing now. We either had to pay heavy taxes, be killed if not converted, or go to southern Egypt to live the rest of our lives. If you want to apologize for the Muslims maybe they should come out from heiding and apologize first! And Gaius Octavius you're right maybe you guys should learn about their horrors, before you learn about ours. Just because you guys lived in Northern Europe, it is easy to forget but around here it isn't! So before you apologize for us learn the history, everything happens for a reason and as they say, 'an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was born in Toronto, Canada and moved to Pittsburgh, Pennsylavania. And to the homeboys in the U.S. Steelers won the Superbowl!

Germanicus I promise no more threads. I read the read what you told me too. I understand the decline. After though when they split up the Roman Empires it was doing better. The Eastern Empire offered up help to the Wester Empire, but they were selfish wanting the glory. Leading to ther demise. I want to start a new converstion about when the Gauls attacked Rome in 300 B.C. how did they fair, were they sackes, and what troop types did they have?

The Romans had not encountered much sea battles in their time. The thing is whenever they encountered other ships or where they were in a battle they won. At the Battle of Actium which I posted some time ago, the Egyptians had better ships and better crew. The thing is the Romans just outmaneuvered them proving their legitimacy. Although the Egyptian crewman had been undergoing a contageous fever, the Romans still annihalated them. The thing is the Romans had not been known for their navy. When they encountered Greeks on the open seas they did beat them in several minor battles. The idea of Japan beeing able to beat Rome or any western civilization is not fair. Although if you want to compare the two it has been said by many accurate simulations, Japan probably would not be able to take on any Mediterranian nation. Remember the Japanese hd not learned about the flanking tecniques or anything of that nature. To them it was just my men vs. your men and war is purely based on deception. So to say that Rome could not have been able to take on Japanese ships is just pure speculation. I do though think Allah that the Norse way of deploying ships is undoubtedly, nothing compared to the Roman way. The Romans were also active in the North sea, not just the Mediterranian. As Primus Pilus pointed out earlier. If the Romans were to conquer all of Europe also they have to not be dominant on land but also on sea.

North Africa made up of Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco were not black nations. Thats why they have them under North Africans, or referred to later by the Europeans as 'white Africa.' Black supremecy in these areas has led many to believe that Africans have dominated the region. When the Nubians invaded lower Egypt, also known as northen Egypt, they started putting the white pharaohs in the image of the Africans. Hannibal Barca was painted as being black when in all really in ancient texts he was closer to beeing Roman. They believe also that Jesus was black when in all actuality he wasn't. Like you guys have smartly added Servus was white. The Carthaginians migated from Phoeniecia modern day Lebanon. I've been to a North African nation in Egypt, and I have not seen an African there. Many texts and particularly history channels show it the wrong way. Nubians are not Egyptians they are from Sudan migrating to Egypt. Most of North Africa is inbabited by the extreme norhtern areas which are conceivably white. Uninhabitted areas such as southern Moracco, Algeria, Libya, and Egypt are where I can see incursions of Africans but no where else. They were soldiers, but no text of them playing a significant role was actually proven. So to answer the main question, no Africans did not dominate northern Africa. They were recruited for soldier duty, and nothing more.

Happy birhtday Virgil61! Hope tou have a great bithday.

Could not agree with you more.

My question is not how did it just collapse so easily. The Romans were not on a slow decline, at that specific time. Out of no where Visigoths show up and start ransacking Rome. I just thought was it poor leadership, was it that they were outnumbered, or what? They were not declining at the time of the Visigoth invasions. Its like America beeing the strongest thing and the next thing you know, you see the USSR.

I'm sorry I'm not as smart as you but I promise I will use better terminology. I was just asking how were the Romans so dominant in taking new lands in norhten Europe, and the next thing you know their running for ther lives in Italy? I was just fascinated in that aspect.

If you believe in Christianity than no. I hope I did not offen you if you are not but from my perspective it is.

I am very religious and I don't think Judas betrayed him. Did Jesus know yes, but he did not ask him too. Judas did it for money and nothing else. He later figured out it was not right because he betrayed God. If God told him to he would not have hung himslef.

I don't think everything originated in Africa. I guess, (I hope I don't offend anyone,) you can go back to Noah'a arc to trace origin. He had three sons one went to Asia, one to Africa, and one to Europe. I think the misconception of this is everyone traces back their origin to Egypt. At the same time however Mesopatamia Asia, Greece Europe (however speculation has traced many Greeks from Asia), and Egypt in Africa arised at the same time. Egypt although beeing in Africa were not black Africans. The Africans were deeper into Africa. Remember it has been said a little before the Egyptians, the Mesopatamians arised from the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers.

Just a quick question. If the Romans defended from invaders much dangerous than the Visigoths why did they fall to them? Could they have beaten them if they adjusted their army one more time?