PerfectimusPrime

Well, since considering that he founded an stable government (compared to the republic), I think he is respectable.

Sein

Well, there were the Palatini... that consited to pretty good Germanic horsemen, in the late era. I

Actually they serious diffculities ruling their kingdom, because the majority of the population was highly romanized, either they hated the barbarians or the arianists chirstians that vandals were. Yes, Vandals ruled north Africa quite well for such small numbers, but I would guess, they probably ruled because they caputared Carthage which was a major city of the empire, and could easily serve as a governmental center for any future kingdoms. Also, according to some article, the Vandals had quite good relations with the berbers and what ever there were in the south, and hired alot mercenaries from them. Anywayu, nothing of them survives except their name.

Possible, I guess. Celts were great blacksmiths.

They used both

No, I like it, but I just wanted to know what was the point of posting it.

Uhm, So?

That is because they had later on gained them, thourgh racial mixing and short-term evolution to the less sun-burned envoirement.

Moors are Caucasoids (or that is what I think), if they migrated to Italy, after centuries their skin would hve become more whither. I'd say the theory is highly possible, but I doubt that all the Romans were originated from Moors, some of them might have been Celts, Greeks, Etc. I don't people take it so seriously, where they have come from didn't really matter, where they thought the came from matters.

I do not think that any one being part of any people, is up to the genetics. I think... A Roman is a citizen of the Roman Republic/Empire or is highly Romanized non-citizen, those who are only partly Romanized could be considered to be half-Romans or something.

''But, Romans were known for their excesses.'' Actually, if anything Romans were practical.

If the Mongols and the Persian Empire would face, well, Persians would be decimated. No, Persians didn't rely on sheer numbers; their tactics were quite effective. They used chariots which had shcytings (the rolling blades in the wheels) and could decimate cavalry since they were faster (there were two horses in the Persian chariots). They had light infantry with large shields, spears, swords... and alot supportive archers. Also, they had good heavy cavalry and slingers although I don't remember... Did the Persian army have horse archers? The Persian tactics were actually dominating before the Greeks, Alexander and Parthians. But, their tactics are absolutely obsolete when compared to the Mongol tactics. The Persians would not catch the Mongol quick cavalry, and the mongols could fire back with their excellent bows. Speaking of bows, Mongol bow had *1.5* times longer range than the longbow, and it could pierce through any armour and the Mongols were masters of archery. Basically, the Persians would not even reach the Mongol cavalry and the Mongols would not be killed by the light archers and the Persian infantry would be killed easily. Mongols would easily out-menouver the Persian army and chrush it form the sides, then they would surround them and at the same time firing with their devastating bows. The Persian army, in my view, could start to rout from the first wave of arrows. The Mongol intelligence opertations would probably discover their all weakensess.

Yes, it think that Byzantines were little bit like the Carthaginians in than sence than they used alot of merceneries. But, then again, Constantinople had very high population...

''We say the Roman Empire contributed to the world, but it's Christian legacy left Europe in the Dark Ages for centuries. Just look at Islamic culture to see how much potential development was suppressed. Only after the rennaisance did Europe began to prosper again. '' On the contrary, Christianity saved many aspects of the Roman way of life, Christianity, at first, was set to replace the Greco-Roman Culture, but after the migrations, it became it's most zealous protector. It is (not as insult) idotic to blame Christianity for the era of backwardness. Dark ages were caused by the migrations, the destruction of Roman infrastructure, and the falling into petty warlord kingdoms instead of united Empire, and the European Feudalism (was not caused by Christianity, but rather by the Germanic, warrior culture) which became opressive. The Germanic migrations destroyed much and brought very little. And, the wars in Italy, between Byzantines and Barbarians along with saracen pirates, caused huge damage the infrastructure in Italy, which before, even under the Goths was excellent. Christianity didn't stop the progress, it was the conservatism of the nobles, feudalism, lack of middle class of any kind, the absence of urbanization and scourge of peasants and the serfs, low population, collapse of the trade, poverty... there are many, much more logical explonations of the lack of advancements during the middle ages, in Europe, than the Christianity. Also, when Europe became into contact with the Arabic world (because of the Papacy, through the Crusades) it learned alot of new technology and knowladge, and it opened the eyes of Europe. Europe, with its superior ''viking'' maritime technology started to explore. The Rennesance was not really a major turning point, it was only a phase of devoplement.

Aargh, please use the word-program or other writing programs and break up you text, so it is easy to read...

oh, yeah, that too, I forgot...

Well, no... Rome the City, was in a rather good condition back then. But its importance was mainly symbolic one, because it was never a great production city (unlike constantinople). Anyway, the Imperial court first relocated to Milan because of its tactical location, and later to Ravenna because it was safe behind marshes. Rome's (the city) infrastruture only significantly collapsed later on.

Constantine probably selected the place because it was in a excellent trading position (during it's golden age, almost no trade went to Europe or from Europe, without being taxed by the Emperor) and unlike Rome, Constantinople also became excellent production city, with dozens of foundaries and othe productive facilities for workers. But it had also a down side; because poor people in Constantinople could find jobs with relative ease, few joined the Legion, (that had become a job rather than a mission) there was lack of fully-professional army, although the Byzantine army still had a professional core and mercenary support, it relied on levied troops.

Actually, no The Romans ate pork often and beef was eaten in special ocations.

QUOTE: ''Great, that's what I thought! What sort of ships would they be transported in? I've done a bit of research and can't find anything on Roman transports - all there seems to be is on slave galleys.'' The Romans would probably transport them with galleys or triemes.

Under the Principate the legionaries wore a red tunic. I think there could be exceptions; I found this picture. Under the later empire they wore often white uniform. Most of the legionaries were already mercenaries and the discipline was lost.

Much needed auxilia cavalry Wow, it must be very difficult to use a bow without stirrups...

''Hi, I have a couple of questions about auxiliary forces in the first century AD. When auxiliaries were recruited, were they given the same training as Roman forces? Also, would the commander of an auxiliary cohort also be an auxiliary, or would he be a Roman who had been delegated this responsibility?'' During the republic the legionaries were supplemented, equal number of soldiers from the latin and Italian allies: the auxiliaries. These supplied lighter troopes and the much-needed cavalry. However, during the empire, when rome started to defend, the auxiliaries were very important because the Auxiliaryman's payment was only half of that of a legionary's. This made them more cheaper and they could be left to guard the borders in a rather large number. The Auxiliaries were sometimes specialized troops such as archers and cavalrymen only, so they got the training that they needed for their speciality. The discipline in the auxilia troops was probably the same what it was in a legion. Correct me if i'm wrong, but this is what I remember reading. From the Augustus' reign on the Auxiliaries were systematically recruited from non-Roman citizens. The Auxiliaries were organized into smaller units then the legionaries. The auxilia infantry was grouped into cohorts of 500 or 1000 men and cavalry into similarly sized 'alae' or wings. These smaller sizes made the easier to move around and gave them marching speed. The Centurions of the Auxiliaries were picked from the auxiliaries and they spent their service in the same auxiliary unit, the disciplinary and command structure mirrored that of the legions but was far simpler.

I think that Trajan was the best emperor. And I think that Constantine was a great, but catasthrophical emperor; he misused his power and tried to make him self a semi-divine. With diocletian, he misreformed the army too, starting the rapid deromanization of it. The tetrachy was a disaster, I think. The raising of a gigantic 600.000 army without taking enough centurions, alone made the army less invincible. The supporting of a four great courts was just crippiling to the tax payers.