Rome?

**Bootsiuv** · 09-14-2007, 22:50

Originally Posted by iceman7291

Without a doubt the main factor that made them so great was simply their ability to adapt. Almost everything the Romans used was someone elses idea. But it was the Romans that perfected everything. They improved the aquaduct and made them huge. They had the largest ports because they engineered a waterproof concrete. They were the only ones to make the first true highways. They werent afraid of seeing a good idea and deciding to use it. Before Rome Italy was full of all different Italian races, and basically they came together to form the Romans. And by this logic we are wrong to call the inhabitants of Italy Italian. Sure there used to be Italians but in my opinion it would seem more logical to call them all Romans. To me it seems like all the efforts of the ancestors of the Italian lands go to waste if they start calling themselvs Italian again. They should be called Roman like they truly are, after all they made the effort to combine everyone to become united. Anyway, Rome started as simply a village full of bandits and runaway slaves, all different Italians. So they didnt feel the need to stick to any particular form of anything, but instead to take anything that was better than theirs and take it further. This included everything from buildings to military weapons and formations. So it is clear then why they became so great, and why luck had absolutely nothing to do with it.

The first sentence is quite true....the rest

Your saying Italy was full of "italians" but to my knowledge, it was the greeks who gave Italy it's ancient name of Italia/Italica (depending on the source), which in the beginning was only really the area centered around Rhegion. The ancient inhabitants called the entire peninsula something else, which has been lost to us AFAIK.

Italy was not full of italians....it was full of estruscans, samnites, kalabrians, etc., so I really don't understand your reasoning that to call the people of present day Italy "italians" is a bad thing which throws away their heritage or whatever.

Rome is still their capital, afterall.

And your last sentence is a crock....I don't mean any disrespect, but I can count 3 or 4 times that the Roman Empire would have never existed had it not been for the blunders of others, not anything Rome herself did. .

**Watchman** · 09-15-2007, 00:08

Given how much other folk has piled into the peninsula since the Antiquity (eg. where Lombardy gets its name), how much present-day Italians have to do with the inhabitants of the place back then is in any case somewhat questionable. The locale hasn't exactly been isolated.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 09-15-2007, 00:23

I've avoided this mainly because of topic fatigue but I have to agree with Goldsworthy on this one. The defining factor in Roman history was sheer bloody-mindedness. Destroy a Roman army? They send another, and another. The Legions also made use of a much wider section of the population than the successors.

When you look at the way the Legions functioned they weren't that impressive, it's a lot to do with just how poor their enemies had become. By the time of the Macedonian wars the phalanx had moved from a highly mobile defensive formation to a pointless and wasteful meatgrinder without any real flexability. The Cavalry were almost utterly degraded and the support troops, including the Shieldbearers, were virtually non-existant.

Perseus failure to have his cavalry in position at the start of the battle is symptomatic of the catastrophic collapse of the Macedonian army.

Philip II and Parmenion were likely spinning in their graves and I'm sure Alexander would too if his body wasn't enbalmed.

At the end of the day though the Romans were just another Philhellenic city State and luck has an awful lot to do with their rise, and their fall.

**kalkwerk** · 09-15-2007, 00:33

generally you look too much into aspects like military organization, weapon technology and fighting spirits (no wonder as rtw players). i think the decisive points are of economic, geographical and political matter: wealth and organization were the driving forces. perhaps the punic wars shouldnt be remembered for the good leadership of hannibal but for the poor leadership of most roman commanders. and still they win. fighting spirit? morale? no. population!