Who is Your Favourite Ancient Roman?

[Ducado]

To be honest, I don't really have time for the Romans they were quite apt at committing genocide and rewriting history to suit themselves (sound familiar?)

Take this country for example, one would think that before they took over, it was an island full of savage barbarians waiting to be civilised when there is mounting evidence that it was a thriving cultured and peaceful island, the German Tribes and the Persians had the right idea about them

Er. It wasn't peaceful. Caratacus' tribe the Catuvellauni had their capital at Colchester because they'd invaded the Trinovantes territory, slaughtered them and taken over. The tribes were constantly at war with each other, and it could be argued that was the principal reason for the success of the Roman invasion - some of them openly backed Rome to do down their neighbours.

As for Rome itself, if it hadn't been Rome it would have been someone else. It was the nature of the times, and Rome was relatively enlightened for the time. If it had gone differently we would have been talking about the Carthaginians in the same way. Love and peace as a motto wouldn't have got you very far back then. It doesn't work that well now.

That's if you beleive the narrative that the Romans wrote, there is increasing evidence that most of it was not true, it was just propaganda to justify their wanton slaughter, history written by the victor

 

[scotty123]

You're all messing about: it has to be the man they called Optimus Princeps, the one and only Trajan.

Perhaps the greatest of the imperial commanders, instigator of many domestic improvements, and ruled with great popularity over a peaceful (excluding the Dacians etc) and prosperous empire. His feats as a part-time stone mason also continue to impress to this day.

This and only this, Trajans campaign against the Dacians is often regarded as the best thought out and best executed campaign of any Roman army anywhere

It was one of the first recorded cases of genocide!

Genocide was prevalent throughout the ancient world, it was performed by any Nation or people hell bent on conquest of other lands and people, in fact i would say some ancient empire builders made Trajan and the Romans look like novices!

 

[Ducado]

This and only this, Trajans campaign against the Dacians is often regarded as the best thought out and best executed campaign of any Roman army anywhere

It was one of the first recorded cases of genocide!

Genocide was prevalent throughout the ancient world, it was performed by any Nation or people hell bent on conquest of other lands and people, in fact i would say some ancient empire builders made Trajan and the Romans look like novices!

I disagree, a City would be sacked however what happened in Dacia was unprecedented even for those bloody times

 

[Henkeman]

To be honest, I don't really have time for the Romans they were quite apt at committing genocide and rewriting history to suit themselves (sound familiar?)

Take this country for example, one would think that before they took over, it was an island full of savage barbarians waiting to be civilised when there is mounting evidence that it was a thriving cultured and peaceful island, the German Tribes and the Persians had the right idea about them

Er. It wasn't peaceful. Caratacus' tribe the Catuvellauni had their capital at Colchester because they'd invaded the Trinovantes territory, slaughtered them and taken over. The tribes were constantly at war with each other, and it could be argued that was the principal reason for the success of the Roman invasion - some of them openly backed Rome to do down their neighbours.

As for Rome itself, if it hadn't been Rome it would have been someone else. It was the nature of the times, and Rome was relatively enlightened for the time. If it had gone differently we would have been talking about the Carthaginians in the same way. Love and peace as a motto wouldn't have got you very far back then. It doesn't work that well now.

That's if you beleive the narrative that the Romans wrote, there is increasing evidence that most of it was not true, it was just propaganda to justify their wanton slaughter, history written by the victor

I don't get where you're coming from. No one of any note has ever seriously claimed that the Britons were cave dwelling idiots, not even the Romans themselves for whom British jewellery became a major fashion. What are you trying to do, say everything the Romans ever said was a lie and can be dismissed? What kind of approach to history is that? Of course it's written by the victors, it always has been.

 

[Rascal]

So whilst you lot argue about who sacked where can we get to the bottom of this important question.

If it wasnt Luke that said "that Herods a bit of a ****" who was it?

I cant imagine a Roman using the words bit of

 

[Ducado]

Er. It wasn't peaceful. Caratacus' tribe the Catuvellauni had their capital at Colchester because they'd invaded the Trinovantes territory, slaughtered them and taken over. The tribes were constantly at war with each other, and it could be argued that was the principal reason for the success of the Roman invasion - some of them openly backed Rome to do down their neighbours.

As for Rome itself, if it hadn't been Rome it would have been someone else. It was the nature of the times, and Rome was relatively enlightened for the time. If it had gone differently we would have been talking about the Carthaginians in the same way. Love and peace as a motto wouldn't have got you very far back then. It doesn't work that well now.

That's if you beleive the narrative that the Romans wrote, there is increasing evidence that most of it was not true, it was just propaganda to justify their wanton slaughter, history written by the victor

I don't get where you're coming from. No one of any note has ever seriously claimed that the Britons were cave dwelling idiots, not even the Romans themselves for whom British jewellery became a major fashion. What are you trying to do, say everything the Romans ever said was a lie and can be dismissed? What kind of approach to history is that? Of course it's written by the victors, it always has been.

Not everything can be dismissed that would be foolish, however much of what they wrote was just out and out propaganda dressed up as historical fact

 

[Henkeman]

So whilst you lot argue about who sacked where can we get to the bottom of this important question.

If it wasnt Luke that said "that Herods a bit of a ****" who was it?

I cant imagine a Roman using the words bit of

It was indeed Luke. Poor chap couldn't add up though.

 

[scotty123]

So whilst you lot argue about who sacked where can we get to the bottom of this important question.

If it wasnt Luke that said "that Herods a bit of a ****" who was it?

I cant imagine a Roman using the words bit of

Was it that guy with purple trews?

 

[scotty123]

That's if you beleive the narrative that the Romans wrote, there is increasing evidence that most of it was not true, it was just propaganda to justify their wanton slaughter, history written by the victor

I don't get where you're coming from. No one of any note has ever seriously claimed that the Britons were cave dwelling idiots, not even the Romans themselves for whom British jewellery became a major fashion. What are you trying to do, say everything the Romans ever said was a lie and can be dismissed? What kind of approach to history is that? Of course it's written by the victors, it always has been.

Not everything can be dismissed that would be foolish, however much of what they wrote was just out and out propaganda dressed up as historical fact

To the victors go the laurels....and a bit off factual leeway

 

[DelToro]

That's if you beleive the narrative that the Romans wrote, there is increasing evidence that most of it was not true, it was just propaganda to justify their wanton slaughter, history written by the victor

I don't get where you're coming from. No one of any note has ever seriously claimed that the Britons were cave dwelling idiots, not even the Romans themselves for whom British jewellery became a major fashion. What are you trying to do, say everything the Romans ever said was a lie and can be dismissed? What kind of approach to history is that? Of course it's written by the victors, it always has been.

Not everything can be dismissed that would be foolish, however much of what they wrote was just out and out propaganda dressed up as historical fact

Britain was one of the very few parts of the Roman Empire that produced neither senators, generals or writers/philosophers.

The reasons for this will be many and varied but chief amongst them will be the intellectual and cultural backwardness of the indigenous British.

The Romans were excellent at identifying local talent and claiming it for themselves and absorbing it to further the empire. They clearly did not see the British as being capable or producing the talent to do this.