History of Rome 7/9

[Kyjo34]

you would think an emperor that did all that in Rome could at least manage to have a son. Guess he was too busy building up Rome.

[CaptainGrimes1]

So glad we have the BBC in this country to do proper documentaries

[CaptainGrimes1]

Dramatic music for everything....

[asutn]

This is ridiculously small compared to the great wall of China, which was built even earlier in time.

[lordrah]

@asutn Invading is a lot cooler than hiding behind a wall.

[Cuoreromano90]

lordwellington you say a lot of craps...adriano didn't conquer scotland becouse he decided that the border of the empire would have been the north of england..so it was useless to conquer a land beyond the borders of the empire....if the romans had wanted...they conquered scotland in a month....you study the history and drink less beer

[PoppingSanta]

@Cuoreromano90

The border where were it where because the Romans did not want to go further. If they would have wanted to, sure, they probably would have conquered Scotland, but NOT in a month.

That's the kind of propaganda that you would have heard in Rome at that time, and only idiots believed it.

[Cuoreromano90]

@PoppingSanta you're right..actually a month is little....but they would definitely conquered...

[Philotus1018]

There was nothing in Scotland worth conquering it for.

[LordWellington15]

They dont tell you this, but the reason Hadrian's wall was built was because the Romans tried to conquer the Scots but were beaten back every time. Why is this? Because you can never beat the Scottish!

[omarshinken]

@LordWellington15 thats not true hadrian was just defining the limits of his empire, he built walls all over his empire and there was no such thing as a scottish race then just a mix of picts and gaels. oh and the english beat the scottish what about Culloden. :)

[LordWellington15]

@omarshinken Nope. If you read any history books on Rome, you will find that he in fact tried to conquer the highland peoples of Scotland, whatever you want to call them. In the end he was beaten back, so he resorted to building Hadrian's Wall.

[linkinparkMikeShinod]

@LordWellington15 wrong, there was nothing worth conquering there, rome could've easily beaten them

[LordWellington15]

@linkinparkMikeShinod Um no, actually you are wrong. Rome tried several times to try to conquer Scotland, and every time they failed. This is partially the reason why Hadrian's wall was built.

[linkinparkMikeShinod]

@LordWellington15 why dont you look up the battle of Mons Graupius

Tacitus' statement "Perdomita Britannia et statim missa" (Britain was completely conquered and immediately let go), denotes his bitter disapproval of Domitian's failure to unify the whole island under Roman rule after Agricola's successful campaign

[greeny202a]

@LordWellington15 A romantic notion but pure bullshit I'm afraid. Simple facts were Scotland was a shit hole and didn't have anything to justify the expense of conquering it, if they had plenty of Gold it would have been in the Empire don't worry about that.

[LordWellington15]

@greeny202a You have never been to Scotland, have you?

[LaserBeam002]

Hadrians wall was not only meant to keep people out. It was simply to monitor the coming and going of people within and without the empire. There became a great deal of trade between people behind the wall and people on the other side. Societies grew up at the wall and the roman soldiers actually married women from the areas of the wall.

[BillKiernan]

Being stationed on that wall must have been boring as shit.

[NorthForkFisherman]

You might also compare Hadrian's Wall to the Maginot. A great work that doesn't really mask the weakness within. Rome's own success and the area it controlled were key points as to why it fell as an Empire. Communications and economics, if they don't fully support a nation, will ultimately hamstring it.

[JohanTW]

@NorthForkFisherman Please tell me more if you can :) I am writing an essay on the fall of Rome and I could use all the help I can get.