View Full Version : The Roman Conquest
I was wondering about something. Let's assume (gasp) first of all that the AI is everything it should be in comeptance and realism. If all the factions were controlled by the computer (no human player), would the Romans still be able to conquer the world? I have no way of knowing of course since I haven't seen the stats or gameplay of EB (though of course it looks great). But I must say those factions sure do look fierce. In other words, do/will the Roman soldiers have a real statistical advantage? I know in a few mods, such as Roma mod, it sure didn't feel like I was playing the mighty Roman empire, so I guess I'm also just getting curious about my own favorite, the Romans. :)
well, the pre-marian units were not remarkably superior. its not until the marian reform that they gain their superiority. still not statistically. romans wons much due to their flexibility. and failure on teh other side.
the great greek empires seen in the previews were crumbled to bits before the roman army came to them. I'm not saying rome accidentaly conquered the world. but rome wasnt a superpower from teh start.
so statistically i predict that rome's elite unit (seen so far) the preatorians will be equal in stats to the torikatai argyraspidai of teh seleucids. or the Spartan Hoplitai. just guessing here, i'm NOT an EB member
Lord Tomyris Reloaded
06-03-2005, 15:38
Praetorians cannot be as good as the Spartans, no way. I'd say the best unit of the Romans will probably be the rank and file post-Marian cohorts.
You're neglecting that the Romans didn't just have the legionarres, but also loads of auxilia, and regional allies. When the Romans invaded Britain for the second time, auxilia and allied British tribes did the majority of actual fighting. The auxilia and allies, supported by the Romans, was what allowed the Romans to conquer; it wasn't individual superiority of any one troop, but tactical flexibility brought on by using soldiers from a huge number of regions, and utilization of allies who already knew how to fight certain enemies. Blindly hurling legionarres at an enemy will not, and should not, be a viable path to victory. It's simply not how it happened.
bodidley
06-03-2005, 16:17
How are the early legionary units in EB by the way, Ranika? In RTW Vanilla they already have significant equipment changes from the pre-Marian troops.
I have to agree that Rome's conquest of Europe was not always in the cards. There were plenty of times when Rome's fledgling empire was almost destroyed by foreign competitors (the Punic Wars, for example) and several of the Roman conquests hinged on luck as well as skill. The Roman conquest of Gaul is a perfect example. An extroadinary and ambitious Roman general happened to be there when the Gauls were fighting amongst themselves, and facing Suebi invasion, and he got an exuse to invade because of the migration of the Helvitii. Even then it took him eight years to conquer Gaul, and it was no sure thing.
That's not even to mention the fact if the Romans are bound to win in the game, it devastates replayability.
The legionarres are good; they were very well trained, disciplined soldiers. However, you will not be able to raise hordes of them to rampage across Europe with. You will need to support them, with allies, and plenty of auxilia (which will be quite varied and offer a lot of options, giving the Romans excuses to conquer whole regions, just to produce auxilia that might aide in conquering elsewhere). Other factions have units that, in single combat, will handily trounce legionarres; real war isn't about single units, it's about how you support those units. A well supported milita would do better sometimes than unsupported elites.
The Romans will have access to allies and auxilia from pretty much anywhere they conquer. This allows them substantial flexibility; the legionarres are better than their pre-Marian counterparts, but we have a statistics system that helps to realistically determine strengths and weaknesses. The Romans are subject to the same system; this doesn't mean they'll be weak, but on equal footing, statistically speaking. However, their unit selection is where they'll have strength. We hope for realistic expansion, but there will be no set path. Any faction, used appropriately, can win, but there are also matters of luck, internal, and external problems. It's not just a matter of who's units have the best stats, but who can make best use of what they have.
eadingas
06-03-2005, 16:51
The thing is, a roman legionnary would probably lose in one-on-one combat with most of top elite warriors of enemy armies. Probably even a Roman cohort would lose in combat with a similarly numbered troop made of most elite warriors of say Gauls or Greeks, if they met head-on. This was not how they've won the world, however.
Dux Corvanus
06-03-2005, 17:17
Nay, don't hear them. They're biased barbarians... ~;) ~;p
But they don't make a favour to the factions they love so: if it's true the Romans were not militarily stronger, then we must conclude they were smarter.
What I won't concede is that Rome conquered its Empire by sheer luck.
The truth is: they used superior tactics, and had a better organization. Besides, the common legionaire worked not as an individual warrior, but as a disciplined piece in a complex system. Individualism was reserved for generals, but it wasn't seen with good eyes in the battlefield. Besides, few armies -with notable exceptions- had such interest in logistics and field engineering as the Roman army.
Not to talk about the superior, pragmatic and cunning diplomatic science that Rome employed in its outer relations.
And yes, they used hordes of expendable barbarians as cannon fodder to soften the enemy and save precious lives of legionaires. (Just joking, Ranika... ~;p )
Rome ruled. Rome rules. And I rule when playing with Rome. :laugh4:
Eucarionte
06-03-2005, 17:52
Mmmm... romans being defeated in a 1 on 1 combat vs. elite warriors...maybe, but wars aren´t fought by elite warriors.
In fact, a roman legionaire was equipped for individual combat, while a Spartan, for instance, was not. Spartans excelled in close-formation combat, but when the phalanx broke out, they were dead. The same problem that the macedonian phalanx had; this was clearly demostrated in pydna and magnesia, for example (20-25000 macedonians dead, vs. less than 1000 romans in pydna).
The individual average roman legionaire was far better than the average barbarian warrior, no need for special and smart tactics. This is a fact, and is the reason why Caesar´s legionaires survived Alesia´s site. 200.000 Gauls vs. 30.000 romans show the superior quality of the roman infantry, which was the best by that time.
Also, if we consider the manpower that Rome fielded during the punic wars, specially the second one, putting more and more legions into combat to feed Hannibal´s ego, we can have as a conclusion that even after heavy losses, it could recover in a relatively short time period.
Better average soldier + Impressive manpower = Potential world dominator indeed ~D
Ranika is gonna pick your post apart, you do realize that don't ya? ~;)
bodidley
06-03-2005, 18:01
What I won't concede is that Rome conquered its Empire by sheer luck.
The truth is: they used superior tactics, and had a better organization. Besides, the common legionaire worked not as an individual warrior, but as a disciplined piece in a complex system.
Of course the Romans didn't form an empire out of sheer luck, but luck was certainly on their side.
Sometimes the Romans used superior tactics, but other times they did not. Sometimes the Romans were so cunningly outwitted or simply outfought that their legions were wiped out.
As for the Roman soldier being a single piece in an integral system; of course! Like with any disciplined fighting force, the discipline, not the man-for-man capability, is what won the day. It was said of the Spartans that fighting alone a Spartan wasn't a better soldier than any other, but in formation he had no equal.
Excellent logistics, luck, a solid system of military organization and recruitment, as well as a drive to conquer led Rome to become an empire.
Nay, don't hear them. They're biased barbarians...
I can't believe you're betraying your Iberian roots! ~:confused:
The truth is: they used superior tactics (...)
I wonder what the roman maniples sent into Celtiberia and Lusitania would say about that....or those at Carrhae...or those at Cannae...They were far from having superior tactics over anyone. Though I can't argue they were better disciplined (most of the times, anyway) and organized (logistics, engineering come to mind).
Not to talk about the superior, pragmatic and cunning diplomatic science that Rome employed in its outer relations.
Now this is what they did best. Turning tribes against each other, or just plain breaking treaties when they felt like it.
In fact, a roman legionaire was equipped for individual combat, while a Spartan, for instance, was not.
I disagree. Both Romans (short swords, pilum, large shields, close order) and Spartans (short swords, spear, large shields, close order) were equipped to fight as a unit. And actually, Spartans were regarded as great swordsmen as well as just forming a phalanx.
The same problem that the macedonian phalanx had; this was clearly demostrated in pydna and magnesia, for example (20-25000 macedonians dead, vs. less than 1000 romans in pydna).
Though clearly an overestimate, for argument's sake, let's suppose they fell in those kinds of numbers. One can argue that terrain, commander incompetence and lack of discipline on the side of the macedonians is what won the day (rather than the famed flexibility of the Legions).
The individual average roman legionaire was far better than the average barbarian warrior, no need for special and smart tactics. This is a fact, and is the reason why Caesar´s legionaires survived Alesia´s site. 200.000 Gauls vs. 30.000 romans show the superior quality of the roman infantry, which was the best by that time.
Not to take merit from his victory, it is again an obvious overestimate. And the quality of the Gallic warriors present on that day can be regarded as inferior (low numbers of experienced and professional warriors), not to mention the gross msitake made by Vercingetorix, and the lack of coordination between all the Gallic commanders.
Also, if we consider the manpower that Rome fielded during the punic wars, specially the second one, putting more and more legions into combat to feed Hannibal´s ego, we can have as a conclusion that even after heavy losses, it could recover in a relatively short time period.
Now there's the other thing about Romans. If any nation had suffered the kind of losses suffered by them and the Socii, they would have been crippled beyond their capability to fight a war. On the contrary, they could just pull out more and more legions out of their asses.
bodidley
06-03-2005, 18:40
Not to take merit from his victory, it is again an obvious overestimate. And the quality of the Gallic warriors present on that day can be regarded as inferior (low numbers of experienced and professional warriors), not to mention the gross msitake made by Vercingetorix, and the lack of coordination between all the Gallic commanders.
By the time of Vercingetorix's uprising many of the best Gallic soldiers and leaders were already dead.
With regards to the Punic Wars, Roman determination and willingness to wage war on the people was part of what made Rome successful.
The individual average roman legionaire was far better than the average barbarian warrior, no need for special and smart tactics. This is a fact, and is the reason why Caesar´s legionaires survived Alesia´s site. 200.000 Gauls vs. 30.000 romans show the superior quality of the roman infantry, which was the best by that time.The armies of the Aedui and Arverni/Sequani had all but completely destroyed themselves before Caesar invaded. Caesar was essentially fighting hordes of untrained, poorly armed peasants, as the civil war had wiped out the veteran, trained armies of Gaul. Put 20 units of no-experience, no-upgrade peasants against three units of legionnaires in an RTW game and you will see similar results.
cunctator
06-03-2005, 19:45
In fact, a roman legionaire was equipped for individual combat,
A republican scutum weights about 10Kg, it exhausts the legionaire very fastly in individual combat.
One can argue that terrain, commander incompetence and lack of discipline on the side of the macedonians is what won the day (rather than the famed flexibility of the Legions).
The ability to be less limited by the terrain than the phalanx is part of the legions famed flexibility.
Dux Corvanus
06-03-2005, 20:37
I can't believe you're betraying your Iberian roots! ~:confused:
Sorry, but as you can see by my nick, romanization was a real success with this vir hispanicus. Since 212AD, I'm a cives fully aware of his rights and debts to the Caesar. :bow:
Now I long for becoming part of the equestrial class. :charge:
Eucarionte
06-03-2005, 20:48
Of course legionaires fought in units...I never said they didn´t. The thing is, can you compare a phalanx with a maniple as close formations? Macedonian phalanx was the best infantry in the world until the manipular legions appeared. I´m no historian, but I´ve read some books about this subject, from prorroman, procarthaginian and prowhatever points of view, and they all agree about the fact that the roman legions were equipped to fight as individuals (meaning individual combat without leaving the unit!) so they could move into the gaps in the phalanx line and slaughter the phalangites, who were not equipped to fight once the phalanx formation was broken (that´s what I mean with "individual combat"). Don´t blame me, blame the historians instead :bow:
In Pydna, after the macedonians managed to hold the line against the romans, they started pursuing them. That resulted in gaps appearing in the phalanx line, which permitted the legionaries to move between them. The result was a massacre. About the ashtounding numbers of casualties in ancient battles, many historians also agree in the fact that most of them were caused in the final stage of a battle, meaning one side fleeing with the other side striking them from behind :duel:
"A republican scutum weights about 10Kg, it exhausts the legionaire very fastly in individual combat."
Right. I suppose in close formation they can hold each other shields... that´s friendship! ~:cheers:
bodidley
06-03-2005, 20:58
About the ashtounding numbers of casualties in ancient battles, many historians also agree in the fact that most of them were caused in the final stage of a battle, meaning one side fleeing with the other side striking them from behind :duel:
Many historians also agree that ancient historians were overly fond of massive hyperbole ~;) Particularly the victors...
In RTW I really get bored of chasing defenseless routers. The routers don't even need to be struck much of the time, just touched, and they never fight back. The reason why a man runs from a battle is that he is desperate to survive, and he'll do so by any means; whether it be fighting his way out or running faster than he's ever run before (if you've ever been chased by a bear you know exactly what I mean ~:eek: ). That is why many of the ancient military methodoligists recommended being wary of fleeing enemies.
From a gameplay perspective, it just gets boring chasing down and massacering all of those helpless routers, there's just no sport in it and it takes up too much time.
Eucarionte
06-03-2005, 21:07
With "historians" I mean "contemporary-know-it-all historians", not Polibio or Livio ~:)
P.D: I´ve never been pursued by a bear, but... does a BULL do the trick? LOL
Lord Tomyris Reloaded
06-03-2005, 22:33
Ah Dux, you are a Roman after my own heart! Truly, I renounce all ties to a Celtic heritage I may have, and embrace the Romanisation of the world!
eadingas
06-03-2005, 22:40
In Pydna, after the macedonians managed to hold the line against the romans, they started pursuing them. That resulted in gaps appearing in the phalanx line, which permitted the legionaries to move between them. The result was a massacre.
Also know as the "Hastings scenario" :)
The thing is, can you compare a phalanx with a maniple as close formations? Macedonian phalanx was the best infantry in the world until the manipular legions appeared.
i disagree. The phalanx was still a competent, if not best, formation. but it nEEds a cavalry arm to mash up the sides. the hammer and anvil tactics.
by the time of pydna the cavalry arm wasnt nearly as strong as at its peek. and of course the tactical errors mentioned contribued to the victory of Rome.
As for in General. Rome conquered the world, but not becuase rome slayed everythign else. Everythign else was slaying each other ~;)
IMHO, grekes ahd a better military. but lacked the infrastructure, social organizing and diplmocay. greek coudl have ruled. but the kept killing each other.
As for the legionare vs spartan comment. i take it back, legionares werent possibly as good as spartans, it was just a vanilla-sprung-line. but then again. spartans never really met the legionares. nto at full strength anyway.
DemonArchangel
06-03-2005, 23:24
Fact: The Romans conquered large areas of land.
Thus it can be said that no matter how the Romans did it, they did it anyway, unlike those other civilizations whose glories you tout.
I'm not disagreeing with you. the romans indeed conquered 'the world' as one might state.
but i also state that the greeks and , as i just read, the 'barbarians' where too busy wiping each other out to face the romans. One coudl state that Rome pretty much one becuase everybody else lost.
but my guess it is just a lot of trivial causes and good infrastructure/diplomacy/social structure but definatly not unit quality!
bodidley
06-04-2005, 00:01
Fact: The Romans conquered large areas of land.
Thus it can be said that no matter how the Romans did it, they did it anyway, unlike those other civilizations whose glories you tout.
Fact: The U.S. conquered large areas of land
Fact: We did it by beating up on natives and Mexicans
not by being the S#$% ~;)
While the Romans conquered large areas of land, it was not quite *unlike* say, the Seleukid Empire, the Carthaginians, the Parthians, or the Greeks...or how about those "barbarian" germanic tribes who ragged on the Romans?
The fortunes of war are many; it was not a matter of inevitability that the Roman Empire got as powerful as it did.
P.S. Eucarionte, what's being pusued by a bull like? ~:eek:
Aymar de Bois Mauri
06-04-2005, 00:06
The individual average roman legionaire was far better than the average barbarian warrior, no need for special and smart tactics. This is a fact, and is the reason why Caesar´s legionaires survived Alesia´s site. 200.000 Gauls vs. 30.000 romans show the superior quality of the roman infantry, which was the best by that time.Sarcasm has answered the other questions well, so I won't comment on those, but giving all the credit to the Roman veteran soldiers in Alesia is just plain wrong. The real responsible for the victory in Alesia was Caeser's double wall system filled with traps, holes, towers, wood pikes, etc and the discipline of the army, not specifically the Roman soldier's skill. And we still have to take in to consideration that they were hardened veterans fighting against the remaining soldiers of the Gallic civil war. Most professionals were dead. What Caeser faced were mainly low-quality levied soldiers.
So, it's once again a victory of Roman witt and engeniering, not of soldier's skill.
And if you're not convinced, the Portuguese successefully defended fortress in India against muslim armies with a ratio of 30:1. Once again preparation and strong defensive positions make short work of numbers, although better soldiers will make the task slightly easier.
Ah I didn't really intend to cause a who's the better army thing... I'm just wondering if the Ai controlled all factions, would the Romans do what they did in rl? If not, doesn't that mean there's something missing that realistically did exist?
There are plenty more factors that lead to Rome dominating the mediterranean world, than those that we can accurately represent in-game.
Oh...and the AI sucks.
Ah I didn't really intend to cause a who's the better army thing... I'm just wondering if the Ai controlled all factions, would the Romans do what they did in rl? If not, doesn't that mean there's something missing that realistically did exist?
like sarcasm (living up to his name) already stated. the engine cant handly most thigns that caused Roem to conquer: diplomacy cant be 'better' than other factions. and fortifing cant be more effective, the only real thing that can be represented is the infrastructure.
Eucarionte
06-04-2005, 12:07
The Roman legionaire was the result of many centuries of conquering warfare. Roman equipment was a combination of the best weapons, armor and shield that Rome had had to confront in many different battlefields. They adopted the Iberian falcata after Cannae, and later on the mail armor the Celtic nobles wore. They also used their heavy shields as an offensive weapon, and the famous pilum. Maybe they weren´t more strong or agile than their enemies, but they had the best equipment by that time. Many times (not only Alesia) they were outnumbered by barbarian or eastern armies, but they won. And they won due to several factors, the most important one being the simple superiority of their infantry, and with this I mean their discipline and their equipment, not if they were veterans or not. Romans weren´t specially smart at battles (usually), they just charged head on, for they were pretty confident in the superiority of their infantry. Plain and simple. And that´s precisely what led them to the major defeat of their history at Cannae, but that´s because they were facing the @#~€! goD! ~D
The truth is I´m absolutely pro-greek jerby, so I´d like to believe what you say about greek military being superior to roman military, but unfortunately that´s wrong.
About the Spartan issue, I know they were better as soldiers! But as long as they kept the phalanx formation. Even being nice swordsmen compared to other greeks, they weren´t equipped for blade combat. In fact, their swords were about 30 cms. long, for they were reluctant to fight outside the phalanx, and they lacked armor by that time (or just used the Linothorax). In Spartan words, "we use short swords because we fight close to the enemy". Oh... I suppose my sofism is betraying me again ~D
Anyway, this discussion can be eternal...so let´s concentrate in the AI...
Comments about RTW AI : :furious3: :furious3: ~:handball: ~:confused: :help:
@ bodidley
Mmmm... you mean the feeling of being chased off by a half-a-ton monster, entirely made of a combination of muscles, bones and horns? It just lasted a few seconds after I realized my foolishness and jumped behind the protective wall again, and it looks that my mind has tried to forget that, so I´m not quite sure ~:eek:
Aymar de Bois Mauri
06-04-2005, 12:47
The Roman legionaire was the result of many centuries of conquering warfare. Roman equipment was a combination of the best weapons, armor and shield that Rome had had to confront in many different battlefields. Correct. Not just the best equipment, but the best equipment to work with one another. And the best large range trainning.
They adopted the Iberian falcata after Cannae, and later on the mail armor the Celtic nobles wore. Wrong. Don't believe what RTW says in the Scutarii description. Romans adopted the short straight hispanic sword known to them by Gladius Hispanniensis. The Falcata is a quite different weapon: longer heavy-tipped sabre.
They also used their heavy shields as an offensive weapon, and the famous pilum. Maybe they weren´t more strong or agile than their enemies, but they had the best equipment by that time. Many times (not only Alesia) they were outnumbered by barbarian or eastern armies, but they won. And they won due to several factors, the most important one being the simple superiority of their infantry, and with this I mean their discipline and their equipment, not if they were veterans or not. Read what I posted again. And please, pay attention to what I wrote this time... :wink:
SwordsMaster
06-04-2005, 12:57
And their training and endurance. Roman strength was in their infantry. They had great stamina and could march longer than most of their enemies and faster and carry more equipment.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
06-04-2005, 13:08
And their training and endurance. Roman strength was in their infantry. They had great stamina and could march longer than most of their enemies and faster and carry more equipment.I did say:
And the best large range trainning.
So, some factions should have better diplomacy? Can't that be represented via diplomat's traits? Have some trigger more often for some factions, or give a diplomatic faction it's own diplomat trait. The same could be done for factions that have good leaders (leader traits), or those that fought better in ambushes, etc. (I suspect the Germans performed more successful ambushes than Greek phalanxes). Roma mod did something like this, I think, with the trait "Roman Marching", though I could see developing it further.
Eucarionte
06-04-2005, 13:18
Scutarii[/I] description. Romans adopted the short straight hispanic sword known to them by Gladius Hispanniensis. The Falcata is a quite different weapon: longer heavy-tipped sabre.
Heh...since I´m SPANISH, I can assure you that the name of the weapon is "falcata ibera". The Gladius Hispaniensis is a roman modification of the original Iberian Falcata. I´m not talking about the Dacian falcata. Don´t be so sure about things you just don´t know, will you? ~;)
Dux Corvanus
06-04-2005, 13:38
Heh...since I´m SPANISH, I can assure you that the name of the weapon is "falcata ibera". The Gladius Hispaniensis is a roman modification of the original Iberian Falcata. I´m not talking about the Dacian falcata. Don´t be so sure about things you just don´t know, will you? ~;)
Eucarionte, Aymar is Portuguese and as Iberian as you and me. And he's right, and you're wrong.
This is a falcata iberica -a big single-edged sword that can both slash and stab:
http://www.historialago.com/leg_iberos_i_falcata_01.jpg
This is a gladius hispaniensis, another weapon developed by peninsulars, but rather different -a short straight two-edged stabbing sword. This was adopted by Romans:
http://www.historialago.com/leg_armas_gladiuspugio_d_01.jpg
BTW: There's nothing bad in being pursued by bulls. Go Pamplona in July or any other city that has encierros in popular festivities, and you'll have the pleasure of being pursued by a dozen of them. The bad thing is actually being caught by them... ~;p
Shigawire
06-04-2005, 13:48
Aymar is also from Iberia. But that's not the point. You can't wave around your nationality as if it's a guarantee that you know everything about your own people. In many cases, there are people who are experts on YOUR/MY culture, and these experts don't need to be of the same nationality. If I was a regular joe from, say.. Lebanon, I couldn't have carte blanche to tell Charles Krahmalkov that he's wrong about the Phoenician language - because he has studied it more than I ever would bother to.. EVEN if Krahmalkov is from the United States.
I'm not saying that Aymar is an expert btw. ~;)
The falcata is most certainly a curved blade, and is only related to the gladius hispaniensis by culture. The gladius was a design adopted from ANOTHER iberian weapon alltogether. The only names we have for these weapons are the latin names. Falcata is latin. Gladius is latin. Though it is not unlikely that these names are latin transliterations of the original iberian names for them. The problem in proving/disproving that is that we know next to zilch about the original iberian language. We know of Celtiberian (q-celtic) and mere scraps about Tartessian, but these are languages and cultures with celtic backgrounds and celtic undertones..
http://www.historialago.com/leg_iberos_i_falcata_01.jpg
From a SPANISH site even! ~:cheers:
-edit, LOL Dux beat me to it.
About the Spartan issue, I know they were better as soldiers! But as long as they kept the phalanx formation. Even being nice swordsmen compared to other greeks, they weren´t equipped for blade combat. In fact, their swords were about 30 cms. long, for they were reluctant to fight outside the phalanx, and they lacked armor by that time (or just used the Linothorax).
~;) spartan were 'nice' soldiers? they where with any doubt the most elite infantry of that period! Spartans were according to some (not many) sources very likely to start a sword-fight.
yeah, compared to the Xiphon the gladius was a real giant... ~;)
about the legionares EQ. are all teh post in this time period? 300BC to 0??(i say 300 BC cuz i'm not sure about EB's starting date
Dux Corvanus
06-04-2005, 14:49
Stop talking about Sparta as a real power in that era. After the defeat of Leuctra (371 BC), Spartan power was just a (Sweet? Bitter?) memory. From then on, Sparta was just a toy in the political game of Macedon -first- and Rome -after- for the domination of Greece; its military power reduced to almost nothing, and its legendary discipline becoming a tourist attraction of the ancient world.
Sparta allied the Romans as soon as they stepped on Greece, and when Rome stopped needing Spartans, declared war on them and defeated them with ease, forcing Sparta to seek help in the Achaean League -which treated them in a similar way- to finally fall -as the whole of Greece- in Roman hands.
It had been a long long time since the epic times of Leonidas.
Eucarionte
06-04-2005, 14:51
jerby, you misunderstand all my words ~:cool:
To the rest of you: I see I was wrong (although not completely in this matter), and so I apologize for my ruthless behaviour.
But it was my reaction for I was insulted twice in that Aymar´s post. First he insulted my historical knowledge sources pretending I only knew what I had read in the stupid RTW descriptions, and second saying I didn´t pay attention when I read his post. Just because we don´t share the same points of view don´t make me stupid, right?
Of course, since this guy has posted a few thousand times, he´d have the sympathies of you, being your colleague, and I´ll sound to you as "the easy angered noob". It´s not like it bothers me, anyway.
Dux Corvanus
06-04-2005, 15:06
Actually, Aymar is one of the EB 'founders', and, curiously enough, the Iberian faction coordinator, so believe me, he's made research enough to talk and talk about Iberian warfare and still asking water for wetting his dry mouth... ~;)
Anyway, I can see he had no intention of offending you. He has -as most of us Iberians- a vehement way of expressing himself, but it's just because he loves so much the topic that he can't help argumenting with ardour. Nothing personal, lad. ~:)
ok,
so. back on topic. were Roman Legionares superior in weaponry or armor? cuz I' dont get in anymore. one could state that teh gladius was a piece shit made compact, when another says the Shield was their main weapon. I'm to darn confused to right a good post!
wich reminds me. do/will roman legionares have/will get a shieldbash/smite animation?
bodidley
06-04-2005, 16:15
The Romans copied much of their equipment from their enemies, particularly Gauls and Celtiberians. One of the best examples of this is not just the Gladius, but the short sword in general. Before the battle of Allia, the Roman soldiers were fighting with spears (hastati=spearman)
@ bodidley
Mmmm... you mean the feeling of being chased off by a half-a-ton monster, entirely made of a combination of muscles, bones and horns? It just lasted a few seconds after I realized my foolishness and jumped behind the protective wall again, and it looks that my mind has tried to forget that, so I´m not quite sure ~:eek:
You had a WALL? You lucky bastard... ~:eek:
Aymar de Bois Mauri
06-04-2005, 16:29
Heh...since I´m SPANISH, I can assure you that the name of the weapon is "falcata ibera". The Gladius Hispaniensis is a roman modification of the original Iberian Falcata. I´m not talking about the Dacian falcata. Don´t be so sure about things you just don´t know, will you? ~;)Just like Dux said. And please, don't mistake the dacian falx with the iberian falcata, ok? The falcata is similar to the greek kopis and both are derived from the greek machoira.
Some very confusing ideas running inside your head.
Please, be sure to read good reliable information before making claims, ok?
Dux Corvanus
06-04-2005, 16:35
You had a WALL? You lucky bastard... ~:eek:
He was surely in a bullfight arena... they have protecting walls around the arena so you can hide behind. Many popular festivities in some villages and towns include releasing bulls in closed streets so they pursue people who wants to be pursued -generally drunken youngsters- to the local bullfight place, where they're tainted, while people jump in and out of the arena. That's what we call an encierro. The ones in Pamplona for the festivities of St. Fermin -July 7th- are known internationally, because of that drunkard of Hemingway, who never understood a word about Spain, but felt very macho about these things.
Of course, the spectacle is shameful, childish, dangerous for both people and animals, and I hate it, so I have a laugh every time an idiot is caught by the bulls. Specially very drunken and go-happy foreigners that act irresponsibly as if bulls were cows or big goats. Then they whine at their embassies, as if they had been forced to take part... go figure. ~:rolleyes:
anonymous_joe
06-04-2005, 17:25
Talking about Alesia, and the Roman defeat of masses of Celtic levied troops, let's remember that Caesar's army also went on to score several impressive victories while outnumbered by Pompey's army. Caesar's legionaries were renowned veterans, and considered savage and ruthless by their own countrymen.
About the Spartan issue, I know they were better as soldiers! But as long as they kept the phalanx formation. Even being nice swordsmen compared to other greeks, they weren´t equipped for blade combat. In fact, their swords were about 30 cms. long, for they were reluctant to fight outside the phalanx, and they lacked armor by that time (or just used the Linothorax). In Spartan words, "we use short swords because we fight close to the enemy". Oh... I suppose my sofism is betraying me again
Even the "hoplite-sword" you speak of was about 75cm long (total) not 30cm as you claim, and made for both slashing and thrusting. I've had in my hand left-hand daggers of the 16th century longer than that. However, poorer Hellenic phalangites, especially of later years (namely our time period) were known to carry only very short swords (more like long daggers).
Spartans were elite soldiers, armed with the best of everything. Good quality Linothorax (maybe even bronze for a royal guard or older/richer soldiers), hoplon, bronze helmet and a kopis. In later years, elite, and semi-elite, infantry actually start using this greek version of the falcata.
As for the Roman gladius, it was around 70cm (total), though the Iberian version was longer. BTW, Romans only adopted the gladius *after* the Iberian campaigns against Carthage, before that, they used a similar sword to that of the greeks.
Stop talking about Sparta as a real power in that era. After the defeat of Leuctra (371 BC), Spartan power was just a (Sweet? Bitter?) memory. From then on, Sparta was just a toy in the political game of Macedon -first- and Rome -after- for the domination of Greece; its military power reduced to almost nothing, and its legendary discipline becoming a tourist attraction of the ancient world.
Dux, is right. After Leuctra, Spartan could no longer support large quantities of its elite soldiers and lost hegemony even in its own Pelopponesus. However, during the beginning of our time period, there's a clear revival of the old ways, due to reforms made by a sucession of kings, and they quickly become a small regional power, submiting other polis (Corinth even) in their immediate area. This however attracted the attention of the Macedonian king who promptly invaded and destroyed whatever hopes they had of becoming important in Greece, once again.
ok,
so. back on topic. were Roman Legionares superior in weaponry or armor? cuz I' dont get in anymore. one could state that teh gladius was a piece shit made compact, when another says the Shield was their main weapon. I'm to darn confused to right a good post!
wich reminds me. do/will roman legionares have/will get a shieldbash/smite animation?
Roman legionaries in this time period, have no advantage in equipment, over anyone (except maybe in quantity). The gladius was certainly no piece of shit and much like the medieval or ancient greek warrior, the shield was as much part of their offensive hability as the sword.
Oh and I don't think there's a bashing animation planned so I'll take a chance and say no.
He was surely in a bullfight arena... they have protecting walls around the arena so you can hide behind. Many popular festivities in some villages and towns include releasing bulls in closed streets so they pursue people who wants to be pursued -generally drunken youngsters- to the local bullfight place, where they're tainted, while people jump in and out of the arena. That's what we call an encierro. The ones in Pamplona for the festivities of St. Fermin -July 7th- are known internationally, because of that drunkard of Hemingway, who never understood a word about Spain, but felt very macho about these things.
Of course, the spectacle is shameful, childish, dangerous for both people and animals, and I hate it, so I have a laugh every time an idiot is caught by the bulls. Specially very drunken and go-happy foreigners that act irresponsibly as if bulls were cows or big goats. Then they whine at their embassies, as if they had been forced to take part... go figure.
I actually enjoy these types of festivities, espeacially forcados (for those of that don't know what that is, imagine 1 guy face to face with a bull, that waits for it to charge him, so he can grab his head from the front, then 4 guys jump in and try to stop the bull). However, bullfights that end in the bull's death, sicken me.
metatron
06-04-2005, 17:36
Give me my legions and I will give you the world.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
06-04-2005, 17:49
I actually enjoy these types of festivities, espeacially forcados (for those of that don't know what that is, imagine 1 guy face to face with a bull, that waits for it to charge him, so he can grab his head from the front, then 4 guys jump in and try to stop the bull). However, bullfights that end in the bull's death, sicken me.Yeah. Except for matadores, Spanish don't know how to really bullfight. :wink: They pick on the bull with armoured horses and long lances and don't do much else. We have toureiros (same as matadores) forcados (read guys with the balls the size of watermelons as Sarcasm explained) and toureiros a cavalo - guys that use the horse's agility (unarmoured horse) and their own skill to slide around the bull and do what matadores normally do. Killing bulls is not allowed in Portugal, btw, just fooling around them... ~:)
Give me my legions and I will give you the world.
Give me my Lusitanian hosts and will give you your legions......in body bags.
Yeah. Except for matadores, Spanish don't know how to really bullfight. They pick on the bull with armoured horses and long lances and don't do much else. We have toureiros (same as matadores) forcados (read guys with the balls the size of watermelons as Sarcasm explained) and toureiros a cavalo - guys that use the horse's agility (unarmoured horse) and their own skill to slide around the bull and do what matadores normally do. Killing bulls is not allowed in Portugal, btw, just fooling around them...
Hehehe.....fooling around....
Forcados in action:
http://img238.echo.cx/img238/1048/forcados18qb.jpg
http://img238.echo.cx/img238/741/forcados30ms.jpg
Eucarionte
06-04-2005, 18:37
Ok...
Aymar, I know perfectly the evolution of the iberian falcata, no need for you to explain it (that stuff about the kopis). And I´m not confused at all. Didn´t know that you portuguese, besides being a happy fishermen tribe with a funny accent, were as clever as you´re showing me you are.
Sarcasm, another portuguese friend, this goes for you sweetie:
"There was nothing unusual in lakedaimonian swords until the 5th century, when they began to get shorter. By c.425-400 they had become exceedingly short, like daggers, as is testified to by numerous literary passages [...] this bronze model of a sword, purchased in Crete in 1898, may well reproduce the shape. At 32.2 cm long, it is slightly larger than a dagger [...] Finally, a Spartan woman, when her son complained that his sword was too small, advised him to add a step forward to it."
The Spartan Army, Nick Sekunda. 2004
Ouch! All that studies about ancient greeks...crap...this Nick guy must be lying anyway right?
P.S: By the time they adopted that sword, Spartan also gave up armor completely and started using their pilos helmets. It is discussed if later on they got back to wear some light armor.
Sorry for the Off-topic btw, just teaching some history lessons to some historians ~;)
Dux Corvanus
06-04-2005, 18:48
Bah, they still torture the poor animal with those ominous banderillas. We wonder about Roman morals when we talk about amphitheatre games, and there's still people who enjoy seeing some guys doing the macho man before a frightened beast.
My proposal is: leave the bulls alone. And if you want spectacle, then voluntary gladiators are a better option. It's bloody, they show how big are their balls -as if I mattered- and they're there because they want.
I wished we were known by better things than bullfighting and those horrendous agonic screams -flamenco singing. IMHO, the only difference between pain shouts and flamenco is that, in the former, the poor screamer is taken out of his misery either by euthanasia, drugs or natural death, and in the latter, it is you who needs euthanasia. :sick:
"There was nothing unusual in lakedaimonian swords until the 5th century, when they began to get shorter. By c.425-400 they had become exceedingly short, like daggers, as is testified to by numerous literary passages [...] this bronze model of a sword, purchased in Crete in 1898, may well reproduce the shape. At 32.2 cm long, it is slightly larger than a dagger [...] Finally, a Spartan woman, when her son complained that his sword was too small, advised him to add a step forward to it."
The Spartan Army, Nick Sekunda. 2004
Ouch! All that studies about ancient greeks...crap...this Nick guy must be lying anyway right?
P.S: By the time they adopted that sword, Spartan also gave up armor completely and started using their pilos helmets. It is discussed if later on they got back to wear some light armor.
Sorry for the Off-topic btw, just teaching some history lessons to some historians
Our mods starts more than 150 years after what you mention....we even have soldiers armed with Celtic longswords at this point, so what's your angle? The Spartans, as you knew them, were gone. Get over it. No armour? Right.
Ok...
Aymar, I know perfectly the evolution of the iberian falcata, no need for you to explain it (that stuff about the kopis). And I´m not confused at all. Didn´t know that you portuguese, besides being a happy fishermen tribe with a funny accent, were as clever as you´re showing me you are.
Sarcasm, another portuguese friend, this goes for you sweetie:
Hmmm.....between confusing the Iberian Falcata with the Dacian falx, or saying that the gladius hispaniensis was an evolution of it, I'd say you're pretty knowledgable about this subject. Oh and you're spanish too, so no point in argueing with you, you're there, you just *know*. After all you live in the same place as the Iberian people lived up to *only* 2000 years. I bet you can even trace your bloodlines to them. Hell you might even have a *real* Iberian falcata handed down from generation to generation. Who knows, even some kind of genetic memory...
A sweet, happy fishermen tribesman, with a funny accent I might be but....
"You, Sir, are an idiot."
bodidley
06-04-2005, 19:19
You crazy peninsulares have to learn to play nice ~:cheers: As for all that bullfighting and running with the bulls stuff... We don't have that crazy crap in America; whenever I've been chased by a ferocious animal it was not by choice ~:eek:
Dux Corvanus
06-04-2005, 19:47
We don't have that crazy crap in America; whenever I've been chased by a ferocious animal it was not by choice ~:eek:
He surprised you inside his bedroom wardrobe, mmmm? ~;)
He surprised you inside his bedroom wardrobe, mmmm? ~;)
On that note, in Canada, we ARE the ferocious animals!
Aymar de Bois Mauri
06-04-2005, 20:33
Aymar, I know perfectly the evolution of the iberian falcata, no need for you to explain it (that stuff about the kopis). And I´m not confused at all. Then why all the mistakes and the arrogance that you used in your posts?
Didn´t know that you portuguese, besides being a happy fishermen tribe with a funny accent, were as clever as you´re showing me you are.He!He! "happy fishermen tribe with a funny accent"? Well, these "happy fishermen" handed every Spanish their asses for 800 years. And we're still independent. And not for your lack of trying... :wink:
Sorry for the Off-topic btw, just teaching some history lessons to some historians ~;)Keep trying. We are amused by your "expert" attempts... ~:wave:
bodidley
06-04-2005, 20:39
You crazy peninsulares have to learn to play nice ~:cheers:
:~p
Eucarionte
06-04-2005, 21:06
All the mistakes? I only had one. And that Sarcasm thing got another one (read more about Spartans mate). Not bad for one "future" businessman vs. two happy, fishermen historians ~:cool:
Do you really want to turn this into some kind of stupid ethnical discussion? I think bodidley got it right, really ~;)
Plainly pathetic. Just as your pride of being Portuguese. What I´m proud of, is precisely that you are another nation, believe me.
And now this childish discussion ends.
I was interested that you many have had a contrary point or some interesting obscure historical factoids to share, but between using "Falcata" and "Dacians" in the same sentance and referring to the Portugese as a "happy fishermen tribe with a funny accent" you lost all credibility as far as I am concerned.
Now here's my whole take on how the Romans managed to conquer the known world and grow as they did, a combination of versaitlity, tactical awareness, diplomatic cunning and a bit of luck.
When I think of the Roman army the first thing that comes to mind is "versatile" the Romans used superior logistics and engineering techniques to take advantage of any situation and hence their infantry developed into a versatile soldier capable of filling many roles, to exemplify this examine their equipmen.
The short stabbing Gladius sword
Chain or banded mail armor depending on the time period
The large Scutum shield
And the Pilum
Generally, the Romans would advance before their enemy, unleash their pilum then charge pushing forward using the force of weight to knock the enemy back while stabbing at whatever was in front of them. However they were fully capable of filling other roles such as using their heavy pilum to form a sort of in-prompt to spear wall as a defence against calvalry, like all heavy infantry they were vulnerable to flanking by calvalry and light infantry but in their zenith at least the Romans were fully aware of this and made efforts to ensure it didnt happen. A lax in taxtical awareness like that mentioned above and a signifigant growth in arrogance and a belief in invicinibility is what lead to them being utterly annihalated by the Goths much later.
The Romans also used their logistical and engineering skill to make sure they were in the most advantageous position possible in battle, and as Aymar stated earlier, that can go a long way in winning a battle.
Also if you look at the way Rome expanded, they knew "exactly" when to strike at a foe, just look at the Gauls. The Gauls were fully capable of fighting and defeating Romans, and they had proved it before...However, when Ceasar expanded into Gaul they were at civil war amongst themselves with the various tribes and their military was really a shadow of it's former power. The Gauls were capable of functioning as an oprganized and very effective military force, but Rome "caught them with their pants down" so to speak.
In effect, what I'm saying is that the entire notion that Rome, or any people are just "better" then another is stupid. There are extenutating circumstances, political/economic landscapes, tactical decisions and realities and yes, even luck that determines who is in power, when, and how. There are pros and cons to every military formation, nothing is an "end all beat all" way of doing things, its all a matter of how the cards are played.
Dux Corvanus
06-04-2005, 21:16
These "happy fishermen" handed every Spanish their asses for 800 years.
Ehem... that thing about you 'handing' my ass... you should keep that in private, darling... :embarassed:
~:joker:
And...
Toro, 1476
Alcántara, 1580
Açores, 1582
Montijo, 1644
Not to count the numberless occasions that Portugal had his ass saved by their English godfathers... ~;)
But, yes, the truth is that we have won some battles and lost others but... we've lost every war. :bow:
But, hey... WE STILL HAVE THE BIG SIDE! (and it's the RIGHT one... for yours is the left one...) :laugh4:
~:cheers:
NOTE: Eucarionte, you can't accuse people of being fishermen... when practicing trolling...~;)
In effect, what I'm saying is that the entire notion that Rome, or any people are just "better" then another is stupid. There are extenutating circumstances, political/economic landscapes, tactical decisions and realities and yes, even luck that determines who is in power, when, and how. There are pros and cons to every military formation, nothing is an "end all beat all" way of doing things, its all a matter of how the cards are played.
Exactly. My intention was not to make the romans seem inferior, rather make other peoples equal to them, in some respects.
All the mistakes? I only had one. And that Sarcasm thing got another one (read more about Spartans mate). Not bad for one "future" businessman vs. two happy, fishermen historians.
Funny you call me a fishermen when Spain has the largest fishing fleet in the EU, almost as large as the chinese one. And I advise to get a clue about ancient warfare and its *evolution*. I'm no expert but then again I didn't call a falcata, a Dacian weapon, either.
Do you really want to turn this into some kind of stupid ethnical discussion? I think bodidley got it right, really
Not only did I have no intention of going there, I didn't, when I refered to your nationality I was refering to your amazing theory that because you're Spanish, you know more than Aymar or Shigawire.
Plainly pathetic. Just as your pride of being Portuguese. What I´m proud of, is precisely that you are another nation, believe me.
And now this childish discussion ends.
HAHAHAHAHAHA........*snif*...oh...geeeeee...you crack me up man...want me to quote you on "stupid ethnical discussion"? What about "childish" comments?
I still had something to say....what was that.....hmmmm.....
....oh yeah!
"You, Sir, are an idiot."
Toro, 1476
Alcántara, 1580
Açores, 1582
Montijo, 1644
Not to count the numberless occasions that Portugal had his ass saved by their English godfathers...
Oh c'mon Dux, you know better than that....the only real victory there was Montijo. And if I recall correctly, Toro was a tie, the Castillans were winning but left the field after the Prince João's squadron appeared over the hill. nothing came out of that battle. Peace was signed almost immediately.
bodidley
06-04-2005, 22:36
Do you really want to turn this into some kind of stupid ethnical discussion? I think bodidley got it right, really ~;)
Plainly pathetic. Just as your pride of being Portuguese. What I´m proud of, is precisely that you are another nation, believe me.
And now this childish discussion ends.
You should learn to play nice too...crazy peninsulare :~p
I find it amusing that any reference to these neighboring nations causes such strong feelings.
However, no flame wars will be allowed here. ~:handball:
Dux Corvanus
06-05-2005, 00:09
And if I recall correctly, Toro was a tie, the Castillans were winning but left the field after the Prince João's squadron appeared over the hill. nothing came out of that battle. Peace was signed almost immediately.
You recall very wrongly... because it was Prince Joao who fled back to Portugal, while his father the King Alfonso ran to shelter behind the walls of Toro...
From a 'neutral' (English) web page:
In the afternoon of March 1st, 1476, the Portuguese forces clashed with the Castilian forces under don Fernando at Peleagonzalo, a small town between Toro and Zamora, in a plane next to the river Duero.
The Spanish forces numbered around 30,000 and the Portuguese around 40,000. After several hours of battle, from about noon until sun down, the Portuguese divided their forces. Alfonso V fled, seeking the safety of the city walls of Toro with his men. His son and what was left of his forces retreated towards the Portuguese border. As the Portuguese moved through the Sayago area, as many as 350 Portuguese soldiers were captured by the local defensive militia and were castrated before they were allowed to continue moving back towards Portugal. That was pay back for the way they behave on their way into Spain. Queen Isabel chastised her husband and her soldiers for not pursuing and fighting the Portuguese until they were completely destroyed. According to tradition, one of the church officials commented that Isabel wore her pants better than the men! She had even suffered a miscarriage while riding from town to town raising money and volunteers for her army.
Three months later, King Alfonso V retreated towards Oporto. The military invasion of Castile had failed. Isabel and Fernando had won the war. The towns and villages of along the Duero, on the other hand, were left under populated by the thousands of casualties of the war and the economic damage of the plundering armies. Executions of those who had supported the Portuguese were common.
Haaa! ~D It seems we also know how to keep our independence...~;) And yes, Alfonso V was willing to sign the peace... to avoid further ass-kicking... and nothing came out of the battle: He was not king of Castile. ~;)
And don't worry, Khel. These are 'lovers fights'... ~;) We are joined by our 'love' to Napoleon and other common friends... ~:grouphug:
Well, I'm getting contradictory results on this:
As far as I can tell the battle happened like this....
The Portuguese forces were sieging the town of Zamora after having taken a bunch of small towns including Toro. The Castillan army was assembled, and marched to lift the siege over the town...and battle ocurred near the town of Toro.
The castillan army was organized in 4 great divisions and were superior in number to the Portuguese forces present *at that time*. They proceded to attack and drive the portuguese center back, even taking the Royal standart, but lost it once more after a counter-attack. The Portuguese were driven slowly driven back, and in fact Afonso's army was only saved by the timely arrival of Prince João's corps who drove away both of Fernando's divisions. Then the entire Castillan army retreated (in good order) leaving the field to the Portuguese, who after suffering large losses, could no longer continue the campaign, effectively assuring the throne to Isabella.
The treaty recognized the crown of Isabella, but allowed Portuguese navigation south of the Canárias, opening the door to large-scale Portuguese expansion.
So, while the battle was a Minor Tactical Victory for the Portuguese it turned out to be a Major Strategic victory for the Castillans. What I meant by "nothing came out of it" was that status quo was reestablished. The war was a definite victory for the Castillans of course.
*There's also a famous story about the decepado, D.Duarte de Almeida which had both his hands chopped off, while trying to hold on to the standart, and being stabbed almost to death, while still holding it with it's teeth, eventually loosing it after passing out. The counter-attack successfuly allowed Gonçalo Pires to recapture it and they are both praised by Castillan sources. D.Duarte was taken captive and sent to a monastic hospital in Castille, returning home after peace was signed. His armour is still in Spain, today , and is now the only known example of Portuguese 15th century plate.
And don't worry, Khel. These are 'lovers fights'... We are joined by our 'love' to Napoleon and other common friends...
I like to discuss such matters. Even if we disagree. That guy was getting on my nerves, not because he was Spanish (Dux is Spanish and that doesn't keep me from having gang shower fantasies about him ~;) ), it's because he's an arrogant, know-it-all, antagonistic idiot. Who just happens to be Spanish.
...it's because he's an arrogant, know-it-all, antagonistic...I thought you were talking about everyone from the Iberian peninsula, for a moment! ~D
Aymar de Bois Mauri
06-05-2005, 03:46
Ehem... that thing about you 'handing' my ass... you should keep that in private, darling... :embarassed:
~:joker: LOL :grin:
And...
Toro, 1476
Alcántara, 1580
Açores, 1582
Montijo, 1644
But, yes, the truth is that we have won some battles and lost others but... we've lost every war. :bow: True. You've won battles. I did not said you didn't. Although it sounded a bit one sided due to irritation. :embarassed:
Not to count the numberless occasions that Portugal had his ass saved by their English godfathers... ~;) And the inumerous times they've tricked us invoking false reasons... :angry:
But, hey... WE STILL HAVE THE BIG SIDE! (and it's the RIGHT one... for yours is the left one...) :laugh4: Well, we didn't wanted it for anything. To damn dry... :wink:
Eucarionte
06-05-2005, 11:50
You just can´t quit it, can you? ~:eek: What I won´t tolerate is a nerd continuously insulting me in some weird topic. Nevertheless, this is my LAST post on this topic, no matter what you say after it. Now, let´s get Sarcastic for a moment, shall we?
"idiot". I find very amusing your strange likeliness with this word, since you apparently like to write it again and again. Have you ever considered to work as a clown? I see you´ve got natural aptitudes, you could make lotsa money! I can´t help but imagining you randomly repeating this word in your funny accent. Thank you for giving me such a good time during my exams season ~D
"HAHAHAHAHAHA........*snif*...oh...geeeeee..."
Bravo! you got it! That´s exactly what I mean about childish behaviour! Next lesson: How to walk and chew bubble gum at the same time.
But you know what´s REALLY fun about this? That you´re working for me. And for free. All the effort, the headaches and the stress you´re putting on this mod, and all for me. Guess what? Next time I go to Portugal, I´ll drop 2 or 3 cents (that´ll be enough considering your economy) near your caves, so you can buy something to eat (but please don´t touch me, not even to show gratitude). You truly deserve it.
All the effort, the headaches and the stress you´re putting on this mod, and all for me.
As always, you think too highly of yourself, and not enough of others.
Let me just say that one more time...
"You, Sir, are an idiot."
Dux Corvanus
06-05-2005, 13:02
Eucarionte, kid, you're disgracing us... You have no right to insult several million people for your personal troubles with one or two. That gives your quality as a member of a civilized society. You seriously need to travel more. Good luck on your exams. You haven't passed this one, tho. :no:
deguerra
06-05-2005, 13:05
Eucarionte please do stick to what you said and cease posting...youre an embarrasment to the thread
Shigawire
06-05-2005, 13:45
He is a disgrace to his own people. Puts the Spaniards in a bad light.
Dux Corvanus
06-05-2005, 13:49
He is a disgrace to his own people. Puts the Spaniards in a bad light.
In fact, soft lights make us much more attractive. ~:flirt:
What about locker room light? ~;)
Shigawire
06-05-2005, 15:40
Oh, I don't know about the Spanish really... but the Dutch! They have redlights, so they don't need any sort of consolidation! ~D
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.