Rameses the Great

Gaius Octavius I heard about that, it was pretty funny how they sacred little children. That was how the boogey man would be today.

Guys I know the Romans were active sailors along the Mediterranian. Well how about along the English channel and along the coasts of Germany and Denmark. Were the Romans active in that part of the sea? Did Germans and Britains take after the seafaring skills of the Vikings and made ships like Rome or Carthage did?

That is a great answer Andrew Dalby. The Carthaginians were spread out all over the Mediterranian so they had to have had some communication. Also it seems all the troops he commanded seemed to have had some form of reaching each other before.

Lithuanians were not likely Slavic. The Slavic nation has its own culture spanning from the Balkans and Russia. The Lituanians I think were more Germanic or Nordic in my opinion.

I agree Constantine was ecstatic about the gladiatorial games BEFORE converting to Christianity. They did not have gladiatorial fights in the Eastern Empire since the meeting at Nicea. I hope this answered some of the questions now back to Roman slaves. Let me get us started off, the slaves of Rome were scattered all over the world from what I know. Anyone care to shed some light on this?

I have to strongly disagree with that. During the periods of that time Constantine sought out images in his dream that God came and talked to him. It is understandable if the Western Romans did not change as soon as this happened. Although Constantine put an end to this as soon as he saw his dream. Even at before the Christianity spread, the Eatern Roman Empire held no gladitorial fights. Constantine immediately reformed his empire to become strong Christian believers. If God came to him in his dream to spread the word why would he continue to do this. Just a note on the Roman pagan like the Roman Christian. Before Christianity came the only thing the Roman pagans did for entertainement was attend gladitorial fights. Though when the Christianity came it has been stated that so did the gaditorial fights shortly after.

Thank You Primus Pilus. What this shows me is the ability for Rome to adapt quickly through the times. They made cohorts, because it was now necessary to make better units. The adaptability of Rome was second to none. How they were able to change and conquer new lands by reformating the country is remarkable. The thing that is so great about Rome was that for 1,000 years it was undoubtedly the greatest nation. America is too, but remember America is 200 years old and some of that period was not the strongest. Perhaps if the Romans adapted their army a third time they coud have protected against the Visigoths. But the how and the way they lasted so dominantly for 1,000 years is nothing short of amazing.

Ok, thanks for clearly answering me clearly. Just one question, the Cathaginians fought legionaries while it was conquered. Hannibal experienced them at the battle of Cannae. The second punic war eded in disaster for the Carthaginians but were still independent. The Carthaginians in the third punic war again rose against rome. Later the legionaries of rome came and sacked Carthage. They later salted the Earth after conquering Carthage to symbolize nothing shall grow there again.

How was Hannibal able to communicate with so many different cultures around him? He was great though in getting the best out of his troops. To command that many different troops was somewhat unbelievable. Especially at that time when Rome was unbeatable and almost impossible to get into the heartland. One last question if the Romans decided to take a gambol and put all their troops in the Battle of Cannae, why didn't Hannibal conquer Rome itself?

I think the most interesting Roman navy battle is Actium. Allah I think you'd like this battle if you want interesting facts on the Roman navy.

Before the cohorts were made these units helped defend Rome. They were ironically similar to the cohorts. They both threw pilas before charging and had similar characteristics. A big difference was that these soldiers had round shields and cohorts had square ones. Also the invetion of harder armour contributed to the cohorts. I have one theory though, the pre Marius soldiers were good for protecting the fledgling state of Rome, Rome did not truly start to expand until the cohorts were made. Correct me if I'm wrong please. And guys no threads this time lol.

Was the Celtic language based on Latin. I know all the languages were based on Latin in Europe, I think even Slavic was, the only group in Europe that did not use it was the ever fascinating Basques. Can anyone please give me an answer?

Did the Romans have gladiators before after they became Christianized. I know Constantine gave the idea of Christianity to the Western Roman Empire, and insisted they stop having gladitorial fights. Anyone care to comment on this?

Kosmo who are Mindaungas?

Ok than you Leg X EQ. I know how you feel, you always want to protect your heritage I am no different. If I insulted you German heritage I do not meen to by any meens. I have many German frieds and now I know that I don't have any enemies. Germans on the contrary were very smart. They utilised their army very well against the Romans and sometimes outsmarted them. That is why I try to defend the phalanx so badly that is because that is where my heritage is from. I tend to overexaggerate things to make my point, but you my friend are very smart and sharp. Letsg get back to talking about Celtic information, without further ado!

Please, please I never EVER deamonize ancient traditions of any culture. You sir or maam are trying to make me seem like a deamon myself. Please I'd like to stop this feud, before I have to demean your dignity like you have mind. I'd like to be friends with you but if you continue to take cheap shots at my pride I will have to report this. Can we be friends before this gets carried away.

Look I'll take Spartan hoplites over Urban Roman cohorts any day like I said Greece itself was not united. As the saying goes a nation divided cannot stand. If the Roman legions conquered such great lands why did it take so long to conquer Gaul. Vercengetorix several times destroyed legionary cohorts. Rome was never able to maintain a strong foothold in Britain. The legion was hard to accompany with troops. You need a supporting line in order to go into battle. The phalanx does not need that however. Like in the battle of Cannae is a perfect example. Hannible having his best units on the side known as Libyan spearman and sacred band hoplites. When the legions attacked the center the phalanx closed in and annihalted the legions. This is proof how 70,000 legions lost to a couple of phalanx units and good accompanying cavalry, with Celtic troops. This proved that good management of troops were vital for an army to win. The cavalry closed the remaining gap to insure the victory. Rome did not have better legions that beat the phalanx, they had better generals and overall quality of troops. Sadly the Greeks did not. If they had some form of axeman or something like this , they would have faired much better. And just for the record if you want to compare the prime of Greece to the prime of Rome, compare Julius Caeser to Alexander the Great. But that of course is another topic.

Ok, please explain this to me Leg Ex EQ why did the Druids go into battle chanting upon 'spirits' if they did not think they can strike fear into the opponent? Or do you think for a moment that Druids are civilized people that did not have human sacrifices. Oh no, I guess facts are also single mindedness. The Illyrians also known as present day Albania and Yugoslavia associated with the Thracian and Macedonian nations. Celtic culture evolved from northern Gaul and particularly in England. So don't say I don't know much about Celtic culture. The Celtic culture bordered many lands and associated into Gallatia that much is true. They also bordered Greece and Persia and adopted their ways. Druidic practice stared in Gaul and Britania. And just one more question if Celtic Druidic culture began in Illyria and Italics why were the Greeks not afraid of them? P.S. please do not put words into my mouth. Never did I once call them brainless monsters. If they are brainless monsters how did they last for so long?

No there probably is not you should without a doubt get Rome Total War

What you said was so true. The Egyptian people built it not aliens. If you think that aliens came in the middle of the Sahara and decided to make pyramids to worship the myth of Ra you must be insane. This is all bogus the Egyptians built those pyramids by hard work and determination. How come the pyramids in Mexico isn't questioned? Just because many do not know how to replicated the pyramids does not mean they were not built by humans. I went up close to the pyramids and indeed they were built by human hands. Give props where props are due. I'm and Egyptian and proud to say that my ancestors built those. So please don't say that the aliens made the pyramids, sphinx, or any of that, this is our pride.

Celts are meant to strike fear into the armies of the civilized world. And dude why do you want a Celtic cult there are already Goths everywhere! :pimp: May I suggest Rome Total War to you all trust me you guys would love it.

Yeah Scythians and hot baths, Russians gotta love em'

The question of the matter is that the phalanx was invincible from the front. And for me taht is pretty amazing. The later standard for the Roman soldier was 5'7" after the Roman army had trouble recruiting. If the Greeks had enough cavalry they could easily beat the legion in a head to head collision no problem. The problem is that was not the case in most battles. For those that say, "if the phalanx were so great why didn't they outlast the legion." Simply answered it DID! When the Roman empire died so did its legion. Phalanx on the other hand was used again for many years and in many nations. The Egyptians used spearman known as the nile spearman and pharao's guards. Oh and did I mention similar to the Spartans these units are meant to fight to the death! Legions having great moral could not even do that. Records of how at the Battle of Strickland when the Scotish fought the British, these long piked swords were part of the reason. The legion did show some weakness and that was heavy cavalry of whick Greece did not have much of. The Parthians known for this made the Romans run for their life and iflicted upon them heavy casualties. Just think of it this way if you are protecting a narrow bridge I'd like to see some legions trying to cross it with a solid line of spears. In that case there is only one way that the legions could go and trust me it did not work out well.

Guys why do you hate hypothetical questions so much its what we like and you guys seem to hate it. Guys these questions we history dorks love, so stop hating it so much please. P.S. Ursus nad Germanicus thanks for tolerating me so much you guys are great and have a lot of interesting stuff to say.

In my opinion it was the battle of the Teutonberg Forest. This stopped the Roman advance against the Rhine, and whiped out three Roman cohorts. Or as Augustus Caeser would say in the middle of his sleep, "Varus, Varus give me back my legions!"