Centurion-Macro

I think the barbarians were just too much for the Empire. It is hard to make an Empire, but it is even harder to keep it together.

I am not really a fan, and I don't actually know what Magna is. I sometimes watch Pokemon, The Last Airbender and I am a Final Fantasy fan.

Interesting article there, I shall read it more later. I personally think it may have something to do with the geography of Scotland. If you look at Scotland, there are a lot of highlands and a lot of islands. For the Romans it was a horrible place to be, and perhaps the Empire just didn't want to spend the resources conquering it when there was not much to gain from such an endeavor. Let us not forget that at the time of Agricola Britain had four legions to keep the peace. That is a lot of legions for such a small space, and perhaps they decided Scotland was too much effort - after all, how would you properly garrison the highlands? It would be inviting disaster. However, I may be wrong. But that is what I have always thought.

I wondered if it was possible (with the shipbuilding technology of the time) to build larger ships to cope with tidal conditions. Of course it was. The Celtic Veneti (most famous example I can think of) made ships capable of sailing in the Atlantic, and no doubt other peoples settled along the coasts had better ships than the triremes that Rome did. Indeed, in the later empire when Roman Britain was being raided, they were done from lightweight ships of very clever construction. If the Romans put their minds to it, they could have constructed a new navy. It was not about size though, but more about seaworthiness. For sailing the rough seas of the Atlantic and North Sea, you needed a good that was lightweight and able to sail easily. A trireme, with its reliance on rowing ports, was good for the calm waters of the Mediterranean, but against the less calm seas they were horrible. Yes, they could have made better ships, but they just did not divert the resources to do it.

Indeed. The navy frequently provided aid to the Roman army, with some legions actually being conscripted to form new legions (eg. II Adiutrix). As far as I know, the Roman naval vessels were very impractical for waters outside the Mediterranean. I can only imagine the hardship the Roman triremes in the Classis Britannica and Classis Germanica must have faced on the open waves. I do not believe the Romans never expanded their fleet and introduced vessels better suited for these areas. I suppose that these fleets (for a lot of their lifespan) were not of high importance, but it is still interesting that they never upgraded their navy for different waters. But as for the Roman navy in general, they were the hated service. The majority were not Roman, you had to serve 26 years, the pay was pretty bad, and you were hated by the other services. It was not seen as a very honorable service, and therefore it was always (the exceptions being naval wars) understrength and under funded.

I believe the Romans, like most contemporary armies, have a weak spot when it comes to guerrilla warfare. The Romans were indeed very formidable when faced in open combat, but throughout Roman history we see that guerrilla warfare was quite successful against the Romans, and that they had a difficult time defeating guerrillas. An example from memory would be the Silures tribe in Southern Wales, which fought for decades against the Romans using such tactics, and they mauled a legion and killed many Romans before they were defeated. The best example I can think of was the subjugation of Britain, where legionaries were frequently ambushed in foraging parties and on the march by the Celtic warriors, and denied to fight in open battles (but when they did fight in open battles they lost).

Since you are probably mainly a specialist in Roman history, I understand why you have this view. This is the common portrayal of Ho Chi Minh in General History Books and Popular Media. The reality is more complex than Ho Chi Minh being a Saint.If anything, Ho Chi Minh was a hypocrite to his beliefs!Check this link: http://thegioi-viet-gi-ve-han.blogspot.com/2008/02/vietnams-ho-chi-minh-myth_10.html Ho Chi Minh is not the noble man he is often made out to be in mainstream history. Us specialists in the Indochina Wars knows Ho Chi Minh was a sinister hungry power person. Ah, but my friend, I am a proud socialist. I know all about him murdering the Trotskyists and his hate for anyone else who wanted to lead the movement. However, you can not deny the loyalty he inspired in his followers. He was pivotal in the fight against the French and the Americans, and I believe that he contributed a lot to Vietnam's independence. And he also would have been the worlds first democratically elected leader had not the US blocked the elections. He was not a saint, but he did care for his country. And while his brand of communism I do not agree with, I believe that he was a good man, and I would gladly argue for him in any argument.

Is it possible that the Romans propagandized the battle, and that we do not have all the facts? I must say myself (as an admirer of the Celts) that it was a mistake to face the Romans in a pitched battle without a clear strategy. The Romans may have been outnumbered, but they were a tough fighting unit, and charging them was a typical Celtic maneuver that failed many a time. So if indeed the Britons did attack the Romans in a disorganized charge as the historians tell us, then, yes, the British were very naive in thinking they could destroy the Roman force.

Welcome to the forum

Ho Chi Minh was a great man.

I wish you luck for a new year in your life

Good. He deserves to be done for something.

Their rise and fall is what I am very interested in. Like or hate the Romans - but they made a tremendous empire, and that is no small feat.

In my opinion, it was because of the tight discipline. The legion was a military machine. While people such as the Celts fought for honor and as individuals, the Romans trained their army into one unit with the best training they could think of. The Romans would not only use their own tactics, but steal them from other nations to use against them. For example, the famous testudo formation, was actually learned off the Celts. The Roman world relied on its imperialism, and so the military was very strong. Other nations, while they had standing armies, would usually be content with what they had. But the Romans were imperialists, and conquered a lot of peoples - therefore technically making them 'superior'.

Welcome! This site is a great place to meet other history buffs, and you can learn a great deal here (I certainly have ).

Was this any good? I had read another book by Ellis and he was, uh, very biased toward the Celts. I read your review on that book, and I am trying to get a copy I personally like it because it smashes the usual view of the Celts as mindless barbarians. I am an admirer of the Celts, and it is nice to see a book that is praising them for a change. It does quote a lot of Celtic achievements and smashes a lot of myths, but I do not think it is biased, but actually quite enlightening (although others may disagree, because it is quite anti-Roman as well). However, it has good information in it, and I am enjoying it a lot. I recommend it to you if you want to learn more about the Celts in Italy.

It uses archeology a great deal, and it puts more emphasis on archeology than the written sources. It is not footnoted, although it has a lengthy bibliography at the back, with all the sources used.

Celt And Roman by Peter Berresford Ellis.

I am currently reading: "Celt And Roman" by Peter Berresford Ellis. It is a very interesting books, and focuses on the Celts in Italy, from the day the Romans encountered them to the day they were finally pushed out of the Po valley. It covers about 200 years of Celtic And Roman history and wars.

Very interesting! I have always held the Batavians as some of the best auxiliaries in the Roman Army. They were more than a match for both their Celtic brothers and the Roman legions. The II Adiutrix is a legion I take more than a passing interest in because apparently they were formed out of Roman marines of the Ravenna fleet, and I am a great admirer of the Roman Navy.

I always though he was straight, as most rulers from that time had intimate relations with men as well as women. It was just part of the culture.

I think a Google search on the subject would probably reveal some good info. But I have not real any books that could help you I'm sorry My own personal views agree that Jesus existed, and many of the other people mentioned are maybe real people or based on real people. In my opinion, it is comparable to the Iliad, where real people are mentioned that actually existed, but mythology is incorporated into it.

Very interesting! it is interesting how far the Romans actually traded with other peoples...it would be nice if they found some important secret fort there though

I am a supporter of the Arab World protests, but to be honest I think the people's rights are more important than the mummies right now.

Ah, so many books but so little time to read them all!