I wasn't having a go at you, I just though you may have misunderstood what I meant.
It wasn't meant to, I was just stating that unrest in Africa and the ME may have nothing/little to to with us and our past.
Empires
- Thread starter Fothsn
- Start date
I wasn't having a go at you, I just though you may have misunderstood what I meant.
It wasn't meant to, I was just stating that unrest in Africa and the ME may have nothing/little to to with us and our past.
Even with the Mongul and Alexander's Empire included the British Empire was still the biggest.
Man of Honour
Not at all, I'm fairly curious about these things as well. I'm British, but ethnically Indian so possibly my interest is from a different view point.
Also reading this, - lots of issues are raised in it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires
it's far easier to crush a rebellion if you can prevent it quickly and with surgical precision, especially if you have extremely superior technologically (ok, the romans had some good **** but it was still sword and shield vs sword and shield (and ballista in some cases)) when you consider how long it lasted even after half of it collapsed it's quite amazing, internally rebellion wasn't too common anyway
Round Italy there wasn't many your right, however a lot of the Roman Emperors changed because the Praetorian gaurd had all the power in Roman (they were the only military force in Rome you see). Yes its very fascinating, I have a degree in classics you see so have studied the Greeks and Romans quite a lot and I never get bored of them.
agreed.
Not at all, I'm fairly curious about these things as well. I'm British, but ethnically Indian so possibly my interest is from a different view point.
Also reading this, - lots of issues are raised in it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires
Sorry I'm confused, are you disagreeing with my statement?
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,537
excellent, it's something i will be going to uni to study (always loved classics and studied it for A level) and yes, the praetorians did rather control the empire from behind the scenes. I'd still say that on the whole, apart from a few problem areas and the boarders, there wasn't a great deal of internal strife (of course there will always be strife, but in the scope of what the empire was it's quite surprising how little there was (when you consider it was a mixed bag of people/religions/up bringings/lives and traditions)!
Not at all, I'm fairly curious about these things as well. I'm British, but ethnically Indian so possibly my interest is from a different view point.
Also reading this, - lots of issues are raised in it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires
Ah okay sorry, just came across rather funny your reply that’s all.
Any History forum or website does list the British empire as the biggest in terms of size, wealth and power it was huge, heard the saying ‘The Empire the sun never sets on’ that’s because it stretched all round the globe, wasn’t too long ago the Empire was alive and kicking not like the Mongols which were hundreds of years before, just a subject that hugely interest me
I wouldn't say they had 'few', I mean just off the top of my head I can name 3 instances where entire legions have been whipped out, but if you read Tacitus or Seutoniouis I think you'd be surprised at how many there actually were. You just don't hear about a lot of them cause the Romans were so effective and vicious at putting them down. However, I also wouldn't say they had a lot, a healthy amount for an empire that size
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,537
I wouldn't say they had 'few', I mean just off the top of my head I can name 3 instances where entire legions have been whipped out, but if you read Tacitus or Seutoniouis I think you'd be surprised at how many there actually were. You just don't hear about a lot of them cause the Romans were so effective and vicious at putting them down. However, I also wouldn't say they had a lot, a healthy amount for an empire that size
i'll let you win this time
but still, given the size of the empire, the technology and the fact that the vast majority of the 'rebellions' they had were put down so quickly that they weren't able to gain enough steam to do any serious rebelliony
p) damage is a testament to their efficiency.
That's what I thought.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,537
I find the Roman empire the most interesting.
Rome suffered some massive defeats but always seemed to win the war. The Germans kicked seven bells of crap out of the Roman armies but were crushed when they tried to enter Italy via the alps.
They had many rebellions from the Slave rebellion, to Sicily (many times) and most importantly Italy. Remember Rome was literally that - Rome and a few surrounding areas. The rest of Italy was different and its citizens were treated as third class citizens. They rose up against Rome and Rome had some massive defeats but triumphed ultimately.
The Roman soldier was also not well paid. A Roman soldier was a land owner carrying out his duty. You needed a certain amount of land to fight in the army and you took spoils and slaves rather than pay. It was later that Marius enlisted the 'head count' (peasants) to fight because the losses were so bad in Gaul that there was no one left to recruit!
Here soldiers could own no land and still fight. The state would provide the armor and weapons and pay the men. This was Romes first professional army and saw being a soldier as a profession rather than a duty.
Rome suffered some massive defeats but always seemed to win the war. The Germans kicked seven bells of crap out of the Roman armies but were crushed when they tried to enter Italy via the alps.
They had many rebellions from the Slave rebellion, to Sicily (many times) and most importantly Italy. Remember Rome was literally that - Rome and a few surrounding areas. The rest of Italy was different and its citizens were treated as third class citizens. They rose up against Rome and Rome had some massive defeats but triumphed ultimately.
The Roman soldier was also not well paid. A Roman soldier was a land owner carrying out his duty. You needed a certain amount of land to fight in the army and you took spoils and slaves rather than pay. It was later that Marius enlisted the 'head count' (peasants) to fight because the losses were so bad in Gaul that there was no one left to recruit!
Here soldiers could own no land and still fight. The state would provide the armor and weapons and pay the men. This was Romes first professional army and saw being a soldier as a profession rather than a duty.
stop playing the fool, it's been mentioned numerous time and it's in the OP.
I mentioned it before anybody else did, and it wasn't mentioned in the OP until she edited it after my post. Now get off your high horse.
As far as I can tell it's only got better for the British people since then.
SHE??? Hmm you will find I am a bloke thanks! And no the OP has not being edited ask a mod.
Soldato
The British Empire - built by Scots and Irish Navvys
Navigator, navigator rise up and be strong
The morning is here and theres work to be done.
Take your pick and your shovel and the bold dynamite
For to shift a few tons of this earthly delight
Yes to shift a few tons of this earthly delight.
Their mark on this land is still seen and still laid
The way for a commerce where vast fortunes were made
The supply of an empire where the sun never set
Which is now deep in darkness, but the railways there yet.
Navigator, navigator rise up and be strong
The morning is here and theres work to be done.
Take your pick and your shovel and the bold dynamite
For to shift a few tons of this earthly delight
Yes to shift a few tons of this earthly delight.
Their mark on this land is still seen and still laid
The way for a commerce where vast fortunes were made
The supply of an empire where the sun never set
Which is now deep in darkness, but the railways there yet.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,537
it hasn't been edited you wally! so get of your high horse
it's been there the entire time, numerous others have asked and numerous times has the answer been given, if you can't read then maybe you should go back to school
edit: i fail at quoting
The Germans got lucky a few times, mostly the Romans killed the Germans and pushed them back to the Rhine and Danuned where it became a stale mate as Rome didn't want to commit any more resources to finish the job, mainly due to Augustus decree a zero expansion policy after his death.
Well all that is true, a lot of it is from the tail end of the republic, before Augustus and the empire. For example the Marius' reforms, were way before Augustus was even born and before Caesar's time.
Not that I'm saying your wrong, I'm just saying this wasn't while they had an empire, (except the rebellion bit which did carry on).