PerfectimusPrime

More like chopped.

Oh, dear me! Unfortunately you have exposed yourself to some wiseacre :smartass: who would injudiciously, undiplomatically, and undeservedly declare: "And it shows". :wub: I'm actually somewhat confused by the meaning of your post?

I don't understand what's this "wikipedia cannot be trusted" thing is about. I've used wikipedia for quite a long time, and there only few cases of severe errors that I've been exposed to. People often - way too often - use it as an excuse when they cannot present any real arguements, they instead attack on the source; wikipedia, and point out it's alleged unreliability. On certain topics, contriversial historical, or current political topics, you should use multiple sources, but then again, that is obvious with any source in the internet.

I've read some of it. Awfully biased I've heard.

I think we should avoid generalizations like that. Gauls were a rather diverse people, with many tribes.

Ah, but why should they try and stop it? Eh? It's a great source of wealth for their country. The Afrcian families in Europe bring money to their country, to the remaining family members living africa. It is a significant source of wealth for their poor economies.

Wow... an admiral... Its the same bs you can read in stormfront. One of the most ridicolous claim what he's making is AFRICAN PIRATES ON MEDITERRANEAN! hah! He is an admiral for God's sakes! All the shores of mediterranean are guarded by relativly peaceful states. Algeria, Egypt, Morrocco ETC. They would put an stop to such activity with military force if necessary, if they would not. Little preassure from Europe, their law enforcement and military would be on it. European navies are some of the most advanced on earth, what the hell do you think a pirate boat could do when facing a destroyer with all the modern devices? First of all, the tribes that migrated to Rome were often a small part of the tribe they originated from. They were armies that took practically over the corrupted Roman system. Rome was not flooded with migrants from the steppes and germania, large groups of migrating people who were armed, more capable of combat than avarage Roman, could subjucate the civilized population when the legions were no longer able to keep them back. To be realistic, Rome's major malfunction was in its government, and in the system of the economy. When Rome was no longer capable of protecting its trade, the cities lacked trade. And when cities lacked trade, they quickly decrease and cease to exist. With no food or money in the cities, the people moved away from cities to the country side, to self-suffiecent villas. Thus European feudalism was born. Germanics merely took over the Roman system that was already established, replaced the existing Roman high-class with another. Population movement was not that immense. Therefore the situation is hardly comparable with his theory. IMO. Its the same bs you can read in stormfront.

Some of them condratrict others and many are, in my opinion, absurd.

Red was quite effective colour of the uniforms. Not only did it hide blood stains, it gave an psychological advantage. Red colour indimidates the opponent sub-conciously. Studies, If I recall, have shown that wrestlers wearing red win more often than those wearing alternative colours. Red is the colour of aggression and the colour of a winner. IIRC However, red dye was expensive and white uniforms were probably most often used.

Rome was never really defeted in military terms, I believe. Even during the late empire the military was still very effective but the empire was collapsing under the economical strain. I don't think the army was invicible however as it was defeated on many occasions.

I think it could've been highly feasible. Ottoman army was better than anything the western Europeans could throw at them, and despite the lack of control over the mediterranean, the ottoman armies in italy would not be isolated. Europeans didn't fully control the seas either and the ottomans, IIRC did have quite formidable fleets. Anyway, if Turks would have landed to italy with sizable armies, I think Ottomans could have reached and conquered Rome, but probably would have not controlled it for long. This is not really my speciality in history, however.

Europe moved from the Dark Ages (from fall of rome to around 1100 perhaps) because of gradual recovery of trade and build up of civilization in general. However, the Rennaisance was triggered by the crusades and the trade in mediterranean, through which Europe came to contanct with the scientifically and culturally more advanced Muslim civilization. During the times when Europe was ruled by petty kingdoms and warlords, muslim world was thriving and dominating. The knowladge obtained from the Muslims through raid and trade, and the experience of witnessing another, often more wealthier culture, opened Europe's eyes and ignited the rennaisance and other significant events. These events evantually lead Europe to more civilized era. IMHO EDIT: spell/grammar checked.

Romans rarely, I believe, assaulted the phalanx from front, but instead tried to flank them. Also, it shouldn't be forgotten that long thrusting spears were gradiually replaced by macedonian pikes, even among the Greek cities... even before the rise of Rome. The Roman shield, curved tower shield, was originally designed against hoplite spears and it could easily divert a thrust of a spear away without much damage to the shield. So Romans could, slowly, reach the phalanx shield wall without overwhelming casualties. IIRC. The soldiers of a phalanx were often poorly trained in sword combat, and the aspis was horibble when not in formation (it was designed to be ), and especially when facing sword armed combatants with centre-grip shields, such as the Romans. In some battles, when Romans managed to break the phalanx formation, the phalangites were quite literally slaughtered by the superior swords and close combat methods of the Romans.

I meant that during earlier times, (mid and late republic so on) beards were, IIRC, considered to be a bad thing, but later they were, acording to my presumption, connected to wisom and philosphy. Rome grew around the mediterranean, and after hundren years of being an empire that united so many cultures, beards were probably no longer taboos since the empire was so diverse and culture was no longer purely Roman. Perhaps they even became a fashion among the nobility? In a hundred years culture, styles, taboos etc change a lot, when there is room for change.

We musn't forget that there was over a hundred years period between the bearded emperors and those emperors of the early empire who wore no beard. Taboos and ways change. I if recall correctly, beards were considered by Romans as a sign that one is incompetent of taking care of oneself. Perhaps that changed when long beards were connected to philosophy and wisdom...