Added: 1 year ago
From: PegEntLtd
Views: 38,027
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (36)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • I never knew romans had black underpants

  • FIRE IN BARBARIC Britain.

    INVADER IS ONLY THE BRETON

  • Pegentltd Julius Caesar was never either King or Emperor of Rome. In 55BC he was a Roman Consul and commander of the armies in Gaul.

  • Goku is still stronger

  • 7 barbarians don't feel might of rome

  • FEEL THE MIGHT OF ROME bitches! 

  • they got stopped at the scottish border ..couldent do nothing ..why ? because when rome fights to someone elles terms they always lose ...they the best at how they fight ....take that away and they like sheep

  • @evilscotsmin :)

    There is a reason why they made Hadrian's Wall and later the Antonine Wall.

    Didn't do much, though.

  • @celticbattleaxe They made those walls in order to show off their technological astonishing superiority in front of the barbarians and they did actually a lot.

  • @SORREization For the beginning, yes - but afterwards, not really. What stopped the Picts was the network of forts around the walls, which would signal the others in case of invasion. Hadrian's Wall was never finished, and for speed of building it was constructed to be 8 feet high instead of 10 feet high. Did the walls work? No, because the Picts still found a way to invade. So, the Romano-British hired Saxon mercenaries. Hengist betrayed them and turned the offered land of Kent into a kingdom.

  • @celticbattleaxe

    I live very close to Hadrian’s Wall and have walked along it several times. Even today it would of taken a lot of resources and money to construct. It is a military machine, a fort with 1000 men ever 4 miles, a castle every 1 mile with 50 men, between 2 watch towers, to the north 2 ditches and mounds, to the south a road and a very wide deep ditch called a vallum. It is built using the natural terrain IE on top of cliffs. They must of had a very good reason for such an effort.

  • @northman585 That's what I mean. This guy doesn't think it was built to keep out the Picts.

  • @northman585 Indeed they must have - to keep away the Picts. :) You are fortunate to live near there. I'm stuck in the US. I'd give anything to go back home. I'll settle with Vermont, but I still want to go back.

  • @celticbattleaxe The Picts were not really the only tribe creating troubles and they were easily defeated on several occasions. The walls were not built because of the Pits but as a monumental exhibition of power addressed to all the tribes inhabiting Britannia, the Roman province: the walls were thought to have a practical function. The story saying that the Picts were such a big issue for the Romans is just a myth.

  • @SORREization Yeah right. Then why did the Roman construct another wall a few hundred years later. By this time, Rome was decaying and needed to protect the borders. The Scots were also a problem, but the Picts probably caused the most trouble. If the Picts weren't a big issue, the Romano-British would not have hired Saxon mercenaries to fight them off, and that caused the collapse of 'Brittania'. If both walls weren't built, the Picts could have taken Roman provinces at will.

  • @SORREization One of Rome's biggest mistakes was underestimating their enemies. The only major battle the original Romans won with the Picts was at Mon Graupius. Did that victory help subjugate the Picts? Certainly not. The Romans would not have built two walls just to make a spectacle for the tribes of Albion. To do that would have been a waste of money.

  • @celticbattleaxe The Picts escaped from the Romans after they have lost the battles. As the enemies of Rome are concerned, the Celts who were not subjected were certainly not amongst they most dangerous ones. Obviously the Romans could not lose their whole time in subjugating all the tribes of the planet.. Some population happened to live out of the boundaries of the Roman Empire, just like those Picts that moved to the far north. But there is nothing heroic in that.

  • Besides you're completely losing the point: it would be a fortune for the future of Britannia to have been conquered and civilized by the Romans. God wanted so.

  • @SORREization Yeah right. Conquest of Ireland and Scotland would have cost too much money. Plus, there was strong resistance in the highlands.

  • @celticbattleaxe That was just a land that was not conquered so the barbarians who didn't want to ejoy the Empire could move there. There is nothing extraordinary in this event.

    Hironically enough, both Scotland and Ireland would be "spiritually Romanized" in depth through the Roman Catholicism .

  • @SORREization 'Enjoy the empire'? I don't think any of them really wanted to. To me, it is extraordinary. The fact tat the Romans never conquered them says something. The only people to have conquered the Picts were the Scots (and yeah, the Norse helped too).

  • @celticbattleaxe Well, to be fair the Romans launched only a few expedition into Caledonia. If they wanted to conquer it they probably could have. But it made no sense to launch a full scale attack, some far off land at the tip of the British isle. The real might of the Roman army was always concentrated elsewhere in the Empire.

  • @3dwardcullen69 True, but it was pointless to take it. There was nothing to tax - no farmland. Plus, they had to keep Pictish invasions to a minimum. The Picts were not to be trifled with. So, the Romans built both Hadrian's and the Antonine Wall to keep them at bay, with forts dotting the landscape between the walls. It didn't do much when the Romans left in 410 AD to help secure southern Roman borders.

  • @SORREization To you, no. To me, yes - because the Romans never conquered them. The Picts only lost one time - did Rome use that victory to their advantage? No. That's my point.

  • @celticbattleaxe The Romans didn't really care about the Picts. That's my point. They were not even amongst the tribes of Britannia that caused some real troubles to the Romans. 

  • @SORREization Out of all the Pretannic tribes, they caused the most resistance since the days of Boudicca (and I wish she got rid of all the Romans). Most historians agree that the two walls were built to keep them back. Why else would they build another wall (after Hadrian's) further in Pict territory? And why would they have sped through the process so quickly to finish both of them? This is not to say that I am 100% right, but it makes sense, and most historians agree.

  • Roman Power

  • beat back the savag races romans

  • propaganda voice (in this video)

  • Thatcher hammered Britain more than any Roman!

  • @mrjlb1968

    She hammered Argentina better.

  • @mrjlb1968 ....Only the union filth and the Marxist parasites leeching off of them.

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more