>>764 Well legionaries were heavy infantry and they would often be expected to spend months in enemy territory without any change of resupplying, so yeah. Rome was never very politically stable or at least, the more memorable years of Rome were marked by change (which makes sense).

>>765 Here's a great video talking about the way roman tactics evolved to face new threats, really interesting stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iz1_UwD2Fw As you can see, even their way of fighting changed as needed. And this is from a people that saw the military and political life as one and the same. If you were a good military leader, you would be a good political leader too. They had no problem changing such an important part of their culture. That's really the key to their success. Their success was not based on their stability, quite on the contrary. >>764 Just to add something else, I see in Caesar similarities to many other great leaders (Alexander the Great being one of them). His willingness to do what is needed combined with his great mind (at least militarily) are stereotypical of great leaders.

>>764 >>766 >I'm amazed how people think this politically dysfunctional disaster of an "empire" is admired for stability. It seems to topple along dictator after dictator like a banana republic Fuck, I need to add something relating to this: The problem of succession plagues all great regimes. From the modern dictatorships of today to the Greek empire of Alexander, they all fall apart without a good successor. Empirical Rome was very lucky when it comes with this issue. Due to their past with the Republic, even during the time of the Empire, powerful families held significant power and could fill in the void if there was a succession crisis. This obviously led to civil wars between the high class, but these wars were quick and decisive so it wasn't that big of a problem. The best solution for the problem of succession simply seem to be to keep in the family. Having a ruling family for centuries helps cement the current and future rulers power and leaves no question to who should be the next ruler when the current one dies. I guess this is why monarchies are so successful.

>>765 80lbs! By the time of Marius the auxiliary concept was on the wane and these men were the standard. I am just amazed at the strength of these men. Even in the military, I do not believe this weight is equal to what they train for. How ripped were these guys? It's just amazing that hundreds of men would be trained for this >>766 Caesar seems a fool to me in his humanitarianism. If he'd purged the elite like Sulla (op pic) did, he would never have suffered his assassination. Listening to how he carried himself about ("a young man so wild and out of control that even sulla deemed him harmless") he reminds me of Trudeau the elder in Canada. >>767 alexander is pretty funny to consider. I used to admire him as a great man, but I can't imagine an empire of his size surviving given how centralized the army command conquering has had to be. He lasted- 100 years? Good grief, A better successor would have taken half that size and kept it for 200. A lot of these ancient "unbeatable generals" (eg huns) seem significant only for exploiting the poor rate of change in society.

>>768 Well, roman culture was all about the military life. They didn't have Spartan tier motivation, but they would still be true professionals from the ground up, not peasants, like most armies even as late as WWII. Caesar was a populist. It's hard to say if he a populist merely for the public support or if he really meant it, but either way, he always tried to not look like a king. For example, during the Lupercalia Caesar was offered a diadem by Mark Anthony but refused for three times, a few days later he was assassinated. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N1_sBxLb3o ) Alexander was no doubt very delusional. His mother told him he was literally the son of Zeus and considering his great success, he had good reason to believe so. And yeah, most large empires don't last long. But I guess the Romans were able to hold a large empire for quite a long time, especially if you include the Byzantine Empire (and maybe the "Holy Roman Empire" just for fun ;P).

Rome was only as successful as it was because it was built from the ground up based on two of the strongest pillars in existence; military tradition and divine tradition. Military tradition makes for tradition itself, unity, and respect for the people you fight beside, while divine tradition makes for judgment, purpose, and respect for tradition itself. This brings a fervor into the general populous, making for a larger quantity and a higher quality of soldiers. Beyond that, the idea of a professional military was preposterous to even the soldiers themselves despite being one of the most professional militaries in the world, all conquering and combat was to support Rome itself, not to line their pockets with money. Even further, the ancient patricians were very smart people, because they made up fictuous history to further cement the traditions and customs of the common Roman man, what better way to convince someone than to tell of what their ancestors did? The first ruler incorporates brute strength and victory, the second patience and absolute peace with religious teachings, the third combines them and displays that you need both religion and combat strength, the fourth establishes the patrician role in society, the fifth and sixth further cements important values and also encourages expansion, while the seventh was made to display why the patricians must be allowed to be in power at all times because kings are bad. Unlike the common person who was fed all of this misinformation and thus believed in it, rich families were as they are today, power hungry and with no respect for the law nor man, you'd be hard pressed to do anything about that without someone even further up the chain of command, but on top of the patricians making this an impossibility, that also riddles the political landscape with plenty of new issues. Either you have a monarch family and risk consolidating power to an awful king with no acquired skills, or you have elected dictators where you risk corruption. Rome did something inbetween, where they had to elect dictators with proven former experience, likely they had to be liked by the public, they had very temporary time, and if they did ever step out of line they'd get killed by the very people serving them, as it would be the highest order of sacriliege they could ever witness. Despite this, the common man did have something to his advantage. He could in very good faith turn on his superiors if that was perceived to be better for Rome, so while the patricians were in charge, they at least had to be careful that the plebs didn't get too agitated. Rome had no culture of its own besides warring and various traditions that all lead to warring, that's why the vast majority of their culture is directly stolen from the Greek. But that worked out very finely for the Romans, expanding further and ever further. Another important facet of Roman ruling was to never interfere in local customs or religion, all they did was force tax payment by way of money and men, as well as influencing them into becoming more similar to the Romans over time. They'd also set harsh examples if their hand was forced by unruly subjects. Skipping ahead quite a bit, my theory on the fall of Rome is that it began falling apart when the idea of fighting for cash became a given. Whereas in the past you fought for Rome, now you fought for money. Even worse is that more patricians turned up and forced the necessary plebeians out of their farms, meaning that the tradition of the farmer warrior became a thing of the past, now forcing them to seek work that earns them money instead of simply farming crops and fighting for Rome when they are needed. It is also likely that the people grew more and more careless of Rome itself when Rome became an invincible empire with no equal nor opposition. Every war started from that point onwards could not possibly be disguised as anything but needless greed for more power and more people under its rule, making the few who weren't already, aware of the state Rome has come into. But that's simply my view on things.

Rome was founded by the killing of Sabine men and the abduction of their women to create Roman offspring. The specifics are steeped in controversy, but one theory is that the Sabine women were lured by the Romans through the offer of free choice and promised civic and property rights to women, but were never granted in Roman society. I enjoy how everyone worships Rome then in the same breath decries rape as worse than murder. As long as neighboring tribes are willing to kill me to rape women, to what extent should I be interested in protecting their virtue?

Do you know about some good educational podcast to learn about Rome history? I was always interested but i'm a complete ignorant.

>>772 I've heard that the hardcore history guy does good podcasts and invariably rome is one of the subjects

>>773 know him and he's pretty good, but maybe I was looking for something more basic.

I'm playing Total War while listening rome history podcasts hoping I can learn something. Any recommendation is welcome. I find hard to get all the names and dates but little by little I catch some things.

>>773 hardcore history was rather showy for my tastes. I tried his KINGS OF KINGS series on Persia and a large amount of digressional filler and military history fanboyism. It's not "hardcore"

>>776 What would you recommend then?

>>777 Will you accept history books? I'm guessing not I've been recommended Mike Duncan's History of Rome series. That might be in your direction. Dan Carlin isn't per se bad, and he does do a lot to set up the scene and make it more real. I just got frustrated by his lack of balanced historical presentation

>>778 >Will you accept history books? I'm guessing not Sure, why not.

>I'm amazed how people think this politically dysfunctional disaster of an "empire" is admired for stability. It seems to topple along dictator after dictator like a banana republic I'm not a major history buff, but isn't that still far better than every other empire? Rome stood for 1000 years (2000 if you count the Byzantines); by comparison, America is a mere 240 years old and has arguably only been an empire for the last 70 years. Even the British Empire (if it was still an empire) wouldn't be half as old today as the Roman Empire was when it fell. The Mongolian empire collapsed not long after Kublai Khan died, and Alexander's empire barely outlived Alexander.

>>780 Rome Empire lasted 500 years, there's empires that lasted more than that, but you can count Bizantyum and add 1000 years to that, so yeah. Alexander empire didn't last unite too much but it was made in little more than 10 years and had an enourmous impact in history and culture. Also you could consider Ptolemaics or Seleucids as successors of Alexander empire.

>>781 Forgot pic.

I'm more of a modern history guy, but I've done a lot of study on Rome in my time. Caesar was a typical power-hungry noble of the period. He had a big ego and a big army with which to feed it. He followed a precedent set by Sulla not only for him but as well for the later empire when any general with a big army could march into Rome and declare himself emperor. So long as he paid his dues to the praetorian guard then the purple was his to wear. It happened like this fairly often, presumably those are the dictators you are talking about. The fact that any moron with an army could be emperor is probably what saved the empire though, consider that the Julio-Claudians, the first royal family of the Empire didn't actually last all that long and another dynasty wasn't really established until the Flavians and they lasted three guys before the military came back. As for carrying weight, it's a lot but it wasn't what they fought with. A lot of it would be tent and cooking equipment and generally stuff to maintain yourself in the field. Actual fighting gear was significantly lighter because it's hard to fight in heavy gear. I'll admit though, I'm a sucker for shitting on Rome because for antiquity I'm a pretty shameless Carthage fan, and of them Hamilcar is the one I consider the best. He managed to secure a pretty decent peace with Rome while outnumbered on Sicily which was on Rome's doorstep at this point. He also inadvertently taught the Romans the tactics used to eventually defeat Hannibal, his son. The coolest Carthaginians were their explorers though. Himilco sailed all the way to Britain and is basically the reason that the Romans even knew it existed, but in classic Carthaginian tradition said that the way was plagued with monsters which not only dissuaded others from getting in on the trade routes there but probably let Carthage charge a premium for the dangerous shipping of the goods. Hanno the Navigator is even cooler with his trip down the coast of West Africa. They think that the things he reports put his furthest point as Mount Cameroon, which is pretty fucking impressive for the time. This guy is pretty well recognised as a badass though, he even has a crater on the moon named for him.

Yes I enjoy European history uptill 1945 then it quits being interesting to me personally.

>>783 Interesting that you'd root for team Carthage, would you recommend any particular books or audio resources on the subject? I was also sympathetic to their struggle while looking at the roman wars. >>779 Finally coming back to this. "The Pageant of the Past" is great, despite being dated. Covers all of history but nice sections on the Romans- Full of brevity, wonderful historical wit, and black-and-white hand sketches that give it an entertaining feel. Loves history in a way modern educational historians no longer do. complementary to this is "Warfare in the Classical World: An Illustrated Encyclopedia of Weapons, Warriors, and Warfare in the Ancient Civilizations of Greece and Rome" for a stronger Military history approach. Wonderfully illustrated, solid commentary of each period that goes beyond the stupidity of "great battles" type knockoffs. Imagine a monograph of written lectures by an expert on the topic, with digressions on tactical evolution and the meat of social changes Pic related. the 80lb legionary of Marius's day which I talk in the op about

>>785 'Carthage Must Be Destroyed' is a good one which goes in light detail over their whole story. It's pretty easy reading so it's most likely that it's the way you're going to want to go for a starting point. There is an older and better version, in Lancel's 'Carthage: A History' but Lancel is French. This is good and bad. For a big picture study of Carthage like this one, the influence of the Annales in France is a boon. The downside is that academic French is dense even in French, let alone when translated into English. If you can stand to re-read sentences to get them fairly often, Lancel's book is the god-tier introduction. After that you can just focus on journal articles on specific topics that are interesting. I used to have a JSTOR subscription that was good for this. The best thing is that they are a different view on the Punic Wars. It's not the classic one we all know about how Hannibal crossed the alps but mighty Rome beat him and then rolled over his homeland. Instead you get one where Rome scraped by the skin of her teeth over multiple trade disputes and wars and eventually was so butthurt at Carthage and afraid of them coming back and causing problems that they wiped them out when they got the opportunity. It's also a laugh when you realise that all those times you hear people fawn over things like Portus with it's artificial safe waters, and then you read about the motherfucking Cothon of Carthage. It makes Roman engineering look like a toddler's crayon scribbles. From wikipedia, quoting an article on JSTOR. >The cothon at Carthage was divided into a rectangular merchant harbor followed by an inner protected harbor reserved for military use only. This inner harbor was circular and surrounded by an outer ring of structures divided into a series of docking bays for ship maintenance, along with an island structure at its centre that also housed navy ships. Each individual docking bay featured a raised slipway. Above the raised docking bays was a second level consisting of warehouses where oars and rigging were kept along with supplies such as wood and canvas. On the island structure there existed a raised 'cabin' where the admiral in command could observe the whole harbor along with the surrounding sea. Altogether the inner docking complex could house up to 220 ships. The entire harbor was protected by an outer wall and the main entrance could be closed off with iron chains Also of note is that the way that Rome thought of to beat Carthage at sea was to build bridges on their ships to make it a land battle. They couldn't actually do naval warfare for shit.

>>786 >Also of note is that the way that Rome thought of to beat Carthage at sea was to build bridges on their ships to make it a land battle. They couldn't actually do naval warfare for shit. Yeah, the corvus. They also could build their first triremes and quinqueremes when they copied a captured cartaginese ship. I started to read an introductory and probably not so good book called Veni, Vidi, Vici, while listening podcast non stop, little by little i'm catching things. I would like to have some decent videogames about the era too but there's not too much about it. Thanks for the recommendations,pictures from that book look amazing.

>>771 >I enjoy how everyone worships Rome then in the same breath decries rape as worse than murder. In the same way names like Socrates or Plato are admired today as representative of classical Greece when they had really conservative ideas and were completely against democracy. I guess the idea of Greek and Rome we have today is just a construction of the renaissence, or even later. Nietszche was one of the few who maybe got it right.

Romans were massive failures on water, but their land and logistical advantages were so massive that really Carthage didn't stand a chance, and there's no doubting the several wars against Carthage was anything but ridding the world of a potential enemy while Rome had the chance, it was certainly no defensive campaign. Funnily enough most failed naval skirmishes were described away as a high-ranking officer displeasing the gods, I don't recall the details but there was a night attack ordered for a Carthagian-aligned port on Sicily, the story says that the commander did a holy rite where a chicken has to do something for it to be okay in the eyes of God, but he pressed on the attack despite lacking the sign the chicken was meant to supply him. Surely this must mean the wrath of the gods made this massive military blunder come forth, not the mistakes of men. It is funny that the Carthagians did not at all foresee the possibility of bridges from ship to ship to turn it into melees instead of cannon brawls, the first battle they were so unprepared that the Romans swathed over their fleet and destroyed everyone that didn't flee, with the added benefit of adding the conquered ships to their fleet. I'm not entirely certain but I think the Romans lost their entire fleet three times during the second punic war despite winning their first engagement. They followed the enemies and got destroyed, they attacked the aforementioned port and got destroyed, and their entire fleet got destroyed in a storm on the way home from North Africa too. But it is a testament to their overwhelming dominance that despite this they managed to rebuild hundreds of new ships ready for any new engagements. >>787 There's a game called Alea Iacta Est but it's not very good and there's not much to learn from it if that was the goal.

>>789 I think he also threw the chickens into the water saying something like "if they don't want to eat then let them drink". He also was exiled for that reason, more than for having lost the battle.

what do my romanbro friends make of contemporary comparisons of the america empire to the roman one? I know it's inane, but the attempts to compare historical figures to contemporary ones are strike my fancy. /Pol/ was claiming Trump was a Gracchi(!) the other day, but I felt him more a Crassus pic is a meme I didn't make summing it up

>>791 hah, typical

>>791 >>792 It's very easy to cherrypick vaguely similar people who aren't similar in the least because Rome lasted a very long time. Just because it is possible to describe all his actions in very vague ways and then line it up with similarly vague descriptions of an existing person does not mean they are similar.

>>791 Roman Empire conquered territory and made it roman provinces, built infrastructures and romanized the world. US, at least lately, just shit in countries. They fuck the country and don't take any responsability, mantaining some puppet weak government while trying to sack all they can. Then they leave the country completely messed up and filled with all kinds of fucked up insurgents. They have nothing in common with the romans, if something they are the mongols of our time.

>>788 >plato Excuse me sir, but he did nothing wrong! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEK4A9hrVjQ

>>791 Retarded as the other wiz said. Especially Trump being one of the Gracchi. Consider that they led one of the biggest land reforms in Roman history and tried redistributing some of the land of the nobility to the plebs. I can hardly see Trump shooting himself and his corporate buddies in the foot by seizing tracts of land and giving it to their wageslaves instead. It's just /pol/ being moronic again. As I was saying, I agree with the other wiz on the ease of which you can compare different people using broad strokes. Using such a strategy, one can easily claim that the Russian Empire was identical to the likes of the Mongol Empire because they both spread their empires across Asia, conquering any tribe in their way. Or that the biggest difference between Hitler and Caesar was that Hitler's assassination failed. There are of course enormous differences here that are easy to see but can be brushed over with broad language. It's the first thing you need to learn when reading history. The people of the past are not like us. They speak different languages, they act different, they have different values. Do not think of them as your friends. A lot of the things we have today are influenced by the ideas of the antique world but to actually think that they are in any way comparable is pure folly. You probably have more in common with a modern Chinese man than you do with a citizen of the Roman Republic/Empire.

>>795 Don't misunderstand me, I'm relatively close to his political ideas, but I find weird the people that praises greek (athenian) democracy and at the same time includes Plato or Socrates in this sort of advanced and progressist classical utopia.

>>797 Truthfully I just wanted a place to post that particularly enriching audiobook. It is ironic that the most famous men of Athens came from the aristocratic faction though- I'm not sure who to think of as a defender of democratic philosophy in that state

>>798 Truth is we know little about other philosophers of the same era, and the little we know it's commonly through Plato itself, and that includes Socrates too. There probably was some sophists who argued in favor of democracy, but we just don't know about them.

I presume that this is also a general history thread? Because while I know a bit about Rome, and it's an enjoyable enough topic. I also really love studying the Civil War. It's not a particularly groundbreaking war for someone who isn't American, but it just looks and feels different when I read it for some reason. Anyway it's fun to study it though I do wish that I had access to American bookstores for content. The best ACW section in my city has about 10 books and a good half of those are historical fiction and the other half aren't that interesting. So does anybody else like the subject? Do you have a favourite regiment or brigade? How about a favourite General? Personally I think that the 13th Penn. Reserve Infantry were cool as fuck. It was a minor battle really but at Good's Farm they held a bridge against four enemy regiments for an hour, allowing retreating friendly cavalry to escape. They all wore bucktails on their hats as part of the uniform due to their origins as a 'rifles' regiment before rifles became standard equipment and the regiment was regarded as sharpshooters. I also like the 11th and 73rd New York Volunteer Infantry Regiments. They were Zouave regiments composed almost entirely of members of various fire departments in New York, which is kind of cool. As for Generals, I think Stonewall was probably the best leader of men that the US has ever seen. The only one on the Union side that I can think of that inspired that much loyalty in his men was McClellan who despite being condemned as a poor general, was almost universally beloved by his men, and had many songs written about him demanding his return to command after he was stripped of command of the AotP. Despite his admittedly poor showing in command, I do have a soft spot for Little Mac, his ability to organise and train essentially an entire army and get it to the gates of Richmond in the very next campaign after being practically walked over is nothing short of spectacular.

>I'm amazed how people think this politically dysfunctional disaster of an "empire" is admired for stability. It seems to topple along dictator after dictator like a banana republic Look at the words you have just typed my friend. How many of them are of Latin and Greek origin? It was not the republic that romanized the world, the Roman republic was a relatively small state with a system every bit as convoluted and unstable as the empire, it only appears less so due to the smaller scale, and so the smaller impact of action. As for history podcasts, youtube channels and what not I strongly recommend you not let them become the basis of your understanding. They can be likened to junk food - tasty, and quick, but lacking substance, and harmful as a habit. Instead try to get as close to the source as you can, everything written already has enough misconception, anachronism and opinion as it is, no need to on another few layers just so that you can save a few hours. Also Speculation on the similarities, and differences of historical and current figures is fruitless, and one runs the risk of trying to attach our current frame of thought to that of the past, and in so coming off with a worse understanding than if you had simply not even tried to learn anything at all. Take for example Grettis saga in which there is a character whose nickname so to speak was "Baby Sparer". That said the overall nature of thought has not changed drastically in who knows how long - take ancient graffiti for example, or the old comedies.

>>801 There are pretty decent podcast though. I'm listening some about Punic Wars, Augustus or Numantia (3-4 hours long each one) that are at least as good than some college class and I don't think they lack substance at all.

>>802 which podcasts? >>800 I've "played" civil war battles with wargames like Across 5 Aprils (weird combat resolution mechanic) and Mosby's Raiders (solitaire), but know next to nothing of the actual history sadly. Not sure if you can direct me to good readings on the topic Since music of the period was being posted in another thread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OKdbc0DYpM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LArGlfEVYqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwckonqbeos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecIVIFLo0uE

>>803 Shelby Foote wrote a trilogy that covers the entire war. It's pretty damn good and was my introduction to the topic. However, THE book for an overview of the war is 'Battle Cry of Freedom' by John McPherson. It's legendary for a reason, that shit is just god-tier. It's a big 900 page book but it's so worth the read and it's enjoyable to boot. It covers the entire period from the outbreak of the Mexican-American War where so many of the big names of the Civil War got blooded and then finishes with Appomattox and the end of the war. It's really good and sweeps you up in it because McPherson slowly lets on the causes and you as the reader, just like those at the time can only start to see the unavoidable conflict on the horizon. It's so well done. Bruce Catton is up there though with his Centennial History of the Civil War. He had access to a lot of primary sources in his childhood as he grew up when the veterans were still around. It's 3 books and they're also pretty decent introductions. You then have the books on specific engagements where the detail really comes into it. They tend to be more dense on details due to the nature of how focused they are. I liked 'The Battle of the Wilderness May 5-6, 1864' by Gordon C. Rhea. 'Landscape Turned Red: The Battle of Antietam' by Stephen W. Sears. This one is also considered a bit of a classic as well. Definitely a must read if you get into the subject. 'The Gettysburg Campaign: A Study in Command' by Edwin B. Coddington. This one is probably up there with McPherson in the 'legendary' category. It's required reading for all the guides at the Gettysburg NMP. However, it is fucking dense and fucking dry. If you can get through it, anything else on Gettysburg will seem shallow in comparison. The dude goes into minute detail on not only the three days of battle but also the weeks leading up to it and the days following it. It's advanced level stuff and I haven't touched yet. It's usually recommended to have a few less dense books on Gettysburg under your belt before you tackle it because you want to be able to follow it in the grandest sense because if you don't have a general idea of what's happening then you can get lost in the details when he starts discussing the movement of forces on a regimental scale. The music was also posted by me. I've not really done a lot on the civil war recently as I started reading on other subjects that I like. I tend to rotate with my historical reading because it stops me getting burned out on any one of them. It so happens that I've started rotating back into wanting to do Civil War stuff again. Here's a good one that I haven't posted yet though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cPRUzfTQhc John Brown being the famous abolitionist who tried seizing the armory at Harper's Ferry to arm slaves for revolt but was captured by local slave owners and eventually executed for treason. It's sometimes considered the match that lit the powder keg because it is what set the South off into forming local militias which eventually evolved into the army of the CSA. Later Union troops took the story and made it into a marching song. One of the units that claimed it wrote an account of the origins and said; >We had a jovial Scotchman in the battalion, named John Brown … and as he happened to bear the identical name of the old hero of Harper's Ferry, he became at once the butt of his comrades. If he made his appearance a few minutes late among the working squad, or was a little tardy in falling into the company line, he was sure to be greeted with such expressions as "Come, old fellow, you ought to be at it if you are going to help us free the slaves"; or, "This can't be John Brown—why, John Brown is dead." And then some wag would add, in a solemn, drawling tone, as if it were his purpose to give particular emphasis to the fact that John Brown was really, actually dead: "Yes, yes, poor old John Brown is dead; his body lies mouldering in the grave." The picture is the field that the Confederate troops crossed during Pickett's Charge. Those trees in the distance is where they started. They crossed most of that at walking pace under artillery and then when they were closer, also took rifle fire. Poor bastards never stood a fucking chance and yet they still made them do it.

>>803 >which podcasts? Spanish ones. I guess there should be equally good ones in english but I haven't found them yet.