bullshit, its ridiculous how they put the romans withstanding the gauls axes like they were helding an umbrella under the rain, in the real world the roman pretty shields didnt last long agaisnt axes, only much latter did they get reinforced enough to withstand an axe attack. those legionaries would be dead
@andresrojas22 You are right to say that they evolved their shield design - many sighted the use of leather coverings at Teutorburg for the weight of shields in the rain making them useless, however the Romans had already met & defeated the much vaunted Spartans & also the Crimbri (Nordic-Celtic people) & Carthaginians - this is after the Marius reforms where Shield walls are depicted stopping horses, arrows & pole weapons - whats more important was their systematic fighting
@infokemp systematic fighting, discipline, all that is irrelevant to the fact that an axe hits the shield with enough force to crack it and even if it doesnt damage the shield the impact of the axe on the shield makes a painfull concussion on the soldiers arm that exhaust his energy very soon. i saw this show n the history channel of a recreation between 2 guys using shields, one used a sword and the other an axe. the one using the sword took like 4 axe blows 2 his shield and
@andresrojas22 I am not saying that the axe is not a great weapon - the English Houscarls at Hastings used it against Norman Cavaliers(!) will great slaughter done to our enemy. However will I might say there is a great different between a modern & a Legionaries strength you might say the same about a Gaul or other enemy of the Romans. 1 on 1 you are probably right but a Warrior (out for personnel glory) vs Prof Troops (code of collective unit discipline) results are not certain
@andresrojas22 P2 The use of the axe as part of a combined arms unit as in the English Houscarl Shieldwall or hogshead means you have comrades covering you from the stabs of the enemies short swords, if your comrades stand with the spear & another with a sword & shield to rush in & flank the man whose shield you are trying to split, if you have archers sniping then all the better - but this requires discipline & training the English under Hengest in 449 had this - Gauls did not.
@andresrojas22 P3 If you talk about 449 or 1066 you see Nordic-Celtic prof Troops - a systematic approach to fighting like a machine (similar to Rome) in Marius or Ceaser's time the Gauls & Britons (Celts) fighting as Warriors (individual glory, skill & trying to fight individuals) 1 on 1 you're right few Romans where as good warriors but Romans fought as a military machine if I go & attack with a flax or axe or broad sword against ranks of Romans they strike from all angles as 1
@infokemp u speak of armies vs armies, discipline vs barbarian warfare, but my point is not of armies or unit organization, nor anything complex like that, its the simple fact that no one can take continuous axe blows to his shield without either having their shields broken to pieces or exhausting and hurting his arm. u dont see that in this video, u see the gauls smashing like crazy the romans shield without any consequence, thats deeply unrealistic
@andresrojas22 I was just making conversation on the subject of history but I get your point. Check out my channel there is a series I made on the creation of England & the English migration to Britain, if you like the videos please subscribe.
@infokemp his shield and after a couple of more blows his arm was in too much pain for him to keep taking more blows, in a battlefield situation he would have died since he could not raise his shield anymore
This is a rare clip where you actually see a legion fighting the way they did. Keeping fresh troops in front meant fewer losses, and pretty soon the enemy would tire out, resulting to breakthrough, panic and annihilation. Romans did lose a few battles, mostly thanks to idiot generals, but for centuries they didn't lose a single war.
@SPQSpartacus Romans fought in formation as a unit - I have read their sword drill techniques influenced the British bayonet fighting in that they struck the enemy to their right, this enabled them to form wedge or strike the enemies flank thus protecting your comrade to the right. As the enemy raised his sword arm to strike he would expose his ribs to the sword strike of the Romans while they remained protected by their shields thus the enemy lost their front rank
This is fucking awesome. They have even included the Roman way of changing the front rank on command. Only thing which is a bit strange is that the Centurion gives an order, and everyone hears it. Romans had banners, horns and such so that they could signal so everyone could hear orders.
@ConsvrgoTitanvRomani not stupid at all mate this is just a sily movie or tv series whatever.The barbarians killed half of romes army within 50 years and set up intelligent traps to ambush.
@JordoF6 Barbarians didn't win a battle against Rome until 40+ years after the time of the battle depicted in this video. And when they did, they destroyed only three legions. This was not even nearly half of Rome's army.
@captainbackflash No. The French as they became was a Germanic tribe who came and ass-raped the remaining Roman presence in Gaul. And of course the Gallic population ;)
So no. For once we can't put another defeat upon the French...
@rollespilleren Yes, you are right. But at least The romans fucked up their empire by themself. Decadence and the ability not to integrate other cultures in their own culture and learn from them was the biggest fault of the roman empire.
@captainbackflash It's not necessarily that they didn't learn from other cultures, because they usually integrated some aspects of foreign culture into theirs, it's just that after hundreds of years of kicking ass, they finally became complacent and lazy, and allowed others to defend their empire instead of themselves.
@Misterunnamed Well they don't necessarily hire people to defend them, but they certainly are lazy and complacent. 1950s USA = 1st century Rome, 2010s USA = 3rd-4th century Rome
Uhh, in the 1950s, the USA had a conscript (draft) army and was on par with the Soviets. In 2010, the USA has a full professional army and is the undisputed sole superpower of the world.
Well, 3rd-4th century Rome also had a large army, it's total numbers were just as large as earlier centuries armies...except they had lesser quality troops and more barbarian auxiliaries.
You americans are full of shit,In Afghanistan and Iraq,with some russian,chinese and iranian weaponry,the US army was defeated by militias and civilians,keeping huge portions of land uncontrolled,not even daring to face them.......LOL
In equal circumstances,Russia and China would have more losses,but the USA would end defeated,due to its massive disadvantage in numbers.
The time of US weapons predominance(90´s to 2000) is over.
See how they use their swords? They sting you with them, they don't hack. One skillful sting and you are incapacitated. You fall down and they trample over you.
@aminoacid1648856 oh, yes. at the sound of the whistle the guy in the front would switch poditions with the guy behind him. that way thay would always have fresh troops in the front line.
i recently made a documentry about romes transition from republic to empire using footage from this series anyone who likes this period in histroy in welcome to check it out. there are two 8 minute segments
Also the gladiatorial arena could be seen as a sacrifice to the Gods as every galdiator had to swear his life to the di infernales and the combat was dedicated as an offering to the di manes or other gods; the event was therefore sacrificium in the strict sense of the term. so rome itself practiced human sacfrice on an industrial scale
@OriginalBlace I don't really think that is human sacrifice, as it was for the entertainment of the crowds, not for the gods. I may have been dedicated to the gods, but it wasn't actually for them. Detestable practice nonetheless. Utterly barbaric.
@Dinoenthusiastguy the big difference with the nazi killing jew thing is that they weren't shy about making it plain that they were. Also the allies have photographic evidence amoung other things and there are holocost survivers that testify that it happened so there a fair bit more evidence for the holocost
@OriginalBlace No, it was actually kept very secret. Most Germans were shocked when they heard the Jews had been murdered. We have photographic evidence of the Holocaust, and we have physical evidence of human sacrifice.
@Dinoenthusiastguy well i am a bit fussy on the holocost but alot of evidence for human sacrifice is more interpretational rather than concrete. Assuming that every bog body is human sacrifice rather than capital punishement or murder seems like wishful thinking to me. And whats your source that the death penalty was imposed for trivial crimes, i've never heard that before.
@OriginalBlace Julius Caesar (Commentarii de Bello Gallico). I know you are going to say that he is not trustworthy, but if he had made it up wouldn't he come up with something more shocking? And I don't really think 150 victims with axe blows to the head and mistletoe in their stomachs is really open to interpretation; what else could have happened?
@Dinoenthusiastguy well it could have been an isolated indecent. like the waco seige. Not a common part of american life. but it still happened. sometimes strange shit happens
@OriginalBlace as i understand it he says that the most common form of punishement was the uncursion of fines and banning from religious services. Although i do remember reading somewhere that if they couldn't pay with gold they would have to pay with thier life.
@OriginalBlace I don't think that was really punishment, I think it was more because their gods preferred criminal blood, but if no criminals were around they'd have to give the gods their second choice. And I think the reason that the Romans mention it more than the Celts is because every time the Romans invaded, that was a Celtic crisis and they sacrificed people to get their gods on their good sides. In normal life, I don't suppose human sacrifice was that common. Nasty gods I must say.
@Dinoenthusiastguy well andrasta definetely but like i dont actually know any celtic gods that took human sacfrice. i think there is information that boudicca sacrificed roman officials to andrasta but i dont know if that was an established practice or because she wanted them to die humiliated. Govannon took sacrifices of metalwork thrown into water like streams or lakes which is where alot of celtic artifacts come from. Succellos was the god of justice but i dont think he did
@Dinoenthusiastguy ahhk. ill have to have alook. Also i noticed that in ceasars book he has support for the existanceof an elite warrior class which he refered to as knights in book 6 chapter 15
@OriginalBlace interesting that ceasar states that vercingetorixes father was the ruler of all gaul as a unified state but had been assassinated causing the states the fall apart
@OriginalBlace Vercingetorix's father I think has always been somewhat of a mystery. I think we are fairly sure he was assassination (as most rulers of the ancient world), but how much do we really know about him? Do you have any books or websites that talk more about him?
@Dinoenthusiastguy the only ancient material sources on vercingetorix's father comes from ceasar's book i think. but im not 100% on that one. Also the only Celtic runic i know of was ogham which was used with Gaelic not the language of the Gauls or Britons which is called brythonic
@Dinoenthusiastguy i think that was more the northern celts who wrote in runic. there are many gallic artefacts with greek characters on them that make no sense in greek
@OriginalBlace I'm no language expert, but is runic based on Greek? Maybe the southerly Celts adopted Greek letters that gradually morphed into runes as it traveled north? Or was runic a pure Celtic invention?
@Dinoenthusiastguy It is subject of discussion if the runic alphabet descents from the old italic alphabet, which may be influenced by the greeks - but it is in no way "invented" or "originated" by any celtic culture. In fact, the main cultural reference would be the eastern and western germanic tribes and I think the first mentioning would have been in 200 BC. Ogham has, as has been proved, no link to the germanic runic alphabet at all.
@Dinoenthusiastguy interesting fact. his source for the celtic human sacfrice was the roman poet Lucan. He also says that it was written as propaganda as the romans had banned human sacfrice a few years before and thus were trying to say that they were superior people. Personally i believe that the human sacfrice thing is pure roman propaganda as no celtic sources even from the time when celtic legends and mythology and history were written down in ireland when the druids still functioned.
@OriginalBlace But, how would you explain Lindow Man and the 150 other skeletons found in the area? He was hit in the hit with an axe, then, while still alive, was garotted , then had his throat slit.
@Dinoenthusiastguy well im not sure about the 150 skeletons your refering to but im sure that lindow man was mugged. His numerous body injuries who signs of struggle and attack not execution his diet showed he was rich and celts wore their riches in the form of jewelry so my theory is that he was attacked, murdered, robbed and dumped in the bog by his attackers.
@OriginalBlace But muggers typically strike quickly, then run off with what they can. Lindow man lived for three hours after he was struck, then killed with a knife at the same time he was being garrotted (not a common pratice among muggers). He and many of the other 150 people also had mistletoe seeds in their stomachs, evidence that they were killed in a druid ceremony.
@OriginalBlace Possibly, but unlikely I think. They didn't give mistletoe in water or on food to those facing capital punishment, and it happened at a time of crisis (just as the Romans were invading).
@Dinoenthusiastguy also if human sacfrice was as common as cesear claimed it was it would be all over the world and there would be records of the customs in ireland. im not saying it never ever happened im just saying that i doubt it was as wide spread as the romans claimed it to be. Also i've still to come across celtic myths and legends or other records mentioning it. ie we know the vikings did it cause the viking sagas tell us they did. celtic myth tells of animal sacfrice but not human
@OriginalBlace Yes, I'm sure the Romans did exaggerate it for their own purposes. And I don't know why it isn't mentioned in any Celtic records. I might not believe it myself were it not for archaeological evidence.
@OriginalBlace if you prefer games europa barbarorum is the best as far as historical accuracy. vanila rome total war is a joke as far as historical accuracy goes
@Dinoenthusiastguy well im not sure about it because he is claiming that they worship roman Gods and we know that they did not. you have to remember that he wants to give them a bad press especiialy the druids because the druids strongly oppossed roman rule. Also boudicca sacrificed them by crucifixion which was definetely not a common celtic practice
@OriginalBlace Picked up from the Romans, I assume. And where did he say anything about the Roman gods? And I know that Caesar was trying to give them a bad name, but why would he say the like to burn delinquents? If he had made this up wouldn't have said something more shocking?
@Dinoenthusiastguy He never mentions any cetlic Gods. He claims that the celts worshiped roman Gods. possibly interpretation or possibly him trying to justify his war to the roman people so it didn't seem like he was commiting cultural genocide
@Dinoenthusiastguy human sacfrice was rare but documented in ancient rome. after the battle of cannae they sacrificed 2 Gauls and 2 Greeks and buried them under the Forum Boarium in a stone chamber which had been used previously for other such sacrifices
@OriginalBlace It seems most of these cultures usually use animal sacrifice, but in times of desperation they would sacrifice humans. Not that it did them any good.
Mass graves could easily been from battle. The head was very important in celtic society and would have been taken and buried in other rituals as it was the persons soul. Also having them steal your treasure is better than having them kill, butcher, rape and enslave all of you and leave nothing left like what rome did.
@OriginalBlace Nope. This grave was nowhere near any battlefield. No weapons were anywhere around there. They were murdered in cold blood. And many head collections were not of Celts, but of unfortunate Romans they captured or killed. And I agree, having someone butcher, rape, and enslave you is worst, so I feel for both the Romans and Celts enemies!
@Dinoenthusiastguy it could have been a small skirmish. weapons and armour are valuable so they would have been collected from the site so thats no evidence that they were murdered in cold blood. and how do you know that they were romans what proof?
@OriginalBlace They weren't Romans, disproving the idea that all the Celts lived in a harmonized utopia. They were probably some poor Celtic civilians that a bunch of druids decided to sacrifice. And one can see if people died in a battle or not (wounds and such) and these were all killed at once without a fight.
@Dinoenthusiastguy Or they were the bodies of soldiers or the victims of desease that were buried and their heads taken to be burying seperatly with goods.
@Dinoenthusiastguy Also the celts were very rich. From preroman gold mines in the pyrenees they would have extracted up to 70tons of gold and from that reigon alone. You need to watch terry jones barbarians primitive celts episode cause your mind is obviously full of misconceptions and sterio types rather than real acedemic information about the ancient celts
@Dinoenthusiastguy they are called the brehon laws, look them up. They were written down when christianity as introduced but predate it by a long shot
@OriginalBlace I'm not so sure. A longsword is a slashing weapon, and thus spreads the force over the sheild. Seriously, have you ever tried to break a piece of plywood with a machete (or even an axe)? It is not easy.
@Dinoenthusiastguy type falx into google images search. You'll see a re-enactor smashing a historically accurate roman scutum with a slashing weapon. Also only about 20% of the pila would have effected the shields. It would have to be a direct hit as a glancing hit would bounce off. Also roman authors describe Celtic warriors as parrying pila or even catching them mid flight and hurling them back.
@OriginalBlace He is not using it as a slashing weapon in the picture, he is using it to thrust. And OK, he pierced it, but could he have killed the fully armoured soldier behind? I don't think so. There is a big difference between the ideal conditions of this test and a real battle. Real soldiers do not just stand there. I experiment with javelins and other weapons, and it is enormously hard to keep catch one aimed right at you, let along one among a fleet of them.
@Dinoenthusiastguy So what in the chaos of battle a roman shield was not invincible . also he is using the slashing part of the weapon. And also roman soldiers fighting the celts were just armoured in the same armour as the celtic best. iron helmet chain shirt. Also daggers and shortswords take way less effort to make than longswords and less materials thus are cheaper. That pretty basic blacksmithing knowledge right there.
@OriginalBlace Short swords would fall out of favour to longswords and longswords would dominate warfare for the next 1800 years. How is that inferior?
@OriginalBlace If you are in a one-on-one fight, with no shields, longswords are superior. However, they were the perfect weapon for a closely packed wall Roman formation.
Ceasar often remarked how skilled elite celtic warriors were like the Catuvellaunii royal guard of britain of fought like mounted infantry only with light chariots that they were incredibly skilled in using. Also Ceasar remarks that the Nervii were very well skilled at warfare and made complex manoeuvrings in the course of the battle that almost beat him. Roman legoinaires fighting against his forces however just got slaughtered
@OriginalBlace I'm not saying that they weren't skilled. Many of them were even more skilled than the Romans. And an army of elite Celts may be a match for Romans. However, Roman soldiers had their equipment paid for by the state. Thus, even poor soldiers were well armed, and the equipment was also standardized. With the Celts, they would have to buy it themselves. Thus, only rich chieftains could afford armour and good weapons.
And at the sabis the auxilleries may have been scatered early on but his force was primarily legionaires who got smashed. Infact it was the pitless hail of missiles shot by the Auxilaries that saved the legionaires and helped them drive the enemy back except the Heavily armed Nervians who stayed and fought to the very last man even making raparts out of thier own dead. Thats the actions of selfless devoted warriors no selfish people. Also they ambushed they roman's who were attacking refugees
@OriginalBlace Hmm... maybe. The Celts believed that if they were brave in battle they would be taken to heaven, so they would usually fight to the death. The fact is, Celts just loved fighting. The whole Celtic culture revolves around the warrior.
you wanna know what the roman greek wars took. a few battles and about 60,000 men. The roman celtic wars never ended and celtic civilization outlived roman civilization, Gaul alone took 8 years and 120,000 men and cost 30,000 roman lives. Compared to the fight the Gauls alone put up the mighty greek civilizations stand was pathetic. Mainstream societies cherished ignorance refuses to acknowledge the ancient celts who's society was much more like the modern world than romes.
@OriginalBlace Greece, when it was conquered, was right at the end of its golden period; it was in rapid decline, famine and disease were rampant, and most Greeks were to apathetic to lift a finger. Greece has an area of 131,990 km2. Gaul has 674,843 km2. Which do you think would be easier or take longer to conquer, and which could muster more men?
To be honest the idea that the Celts were barbarians compared to the romans is laughable. The celts had better hiegene, did drink water from LEAD PLUMBING thus werem't all dying of lead poinsing. Plus they didn't crucify people, commit genocide or watch people butcher each other or be eaten by animals in an arena for fun.
@OriginalBlace First of all, the Romans drank water from lead pipes because they did not know it was poisons. Better hygiene? Would you call drinking blood out of someone's skull good hygiene? And the Celts were not "noble savages"; the druids burned people alive, tortured them, and yes, genocide was part of Celtic warfare. And many Celtic warriors did enjoy warfare and watching their enemies get hacked to bits. In truth, both civilizations were brutish and barbaric.
@Dinoenthusiastguy Actually there is no archeological evidence that the Druids practiced human sacrifice. Its just roman propaganda like the idea that the celts had no artwork, science, architecture, roads, or social organization what so ever like polybius claimed. Also celtic warfare was about taking peoples Gold not killing and enslaving. Plus where on earth did you get the drinking blood from skulls?
@OriginalBlace Also of all the surviving legends and information from the Celtic point of view i cant find a single reference to human sacrifice. Only animal sacrifice is mentioned. When the celts conquered early rome they took thier Gold and left. Also thier war with early rome was because roman dignitaries violated the law of nations against bringing arms to diplomatic meetings and murdered a chieftain. When rome conquered Gaul they butchered and enslaved 2 million
@OriginalBlace Well, maybe there is no direct evidence, but it is quite likely. And, when they conquered Rome they also set it on fire, destroying hundreds of years worth of Roman literature. You will also remember that Rome was in the end destroyed by the Celts. And they did indeed enslave many. I made a mistake, they did not drink blood from skulls, but at banquets they did drink mead from skulls. And the Celts favored means of execution was burning alive (you will remember that an army of...
...Celts under Boudica trapped over a hundred Roman civilians in a Roman temple and then set it on fire). As far as the other things you mentioned, I have seen their artwork, and it is indeed beautiful. However, as far as architecture, roads, and social organization, the Celts do not even come close to the Romans. I am not trying to defend the Romans, they were brutes as well (some of them), but you must not get the idea that the Celts were noble, kind, sophisticated people. They were not.
@Dinoenthusiastguy Boudica was different. She was out for revenge. What she did was out of character for celtic convention. Also the celts very noble and sophisticated campared to the common misconceptions about them cherished by to many. They were every bit as much a civilization as the romans and the greeks and i will never feel at peace until that is the commonly accepted view and until then i will fight for the memory of my ancestors.
@OriginalBlace In reality, the only time they united was when there was a large threat to their whole existence, e.g. a Roman army. Most of the time, they were just squabbling tribes. They were not one civilization. They did not create roads that linked their whole territory, or create great literature, or make remarkable scientific achievements. How many things that we treasure today came from the Celts? Not many. How many by the Romans and Greeks? Lots.
@Dinoenthusiastguy thats horseshit. The Greek world suffered greatly from political de-centralisation. yet we still call it greek civilization. There are also hints in celtic legend of grand unified celtic states which a lack of evidence for is not sufficient evidence against. Also men and women being equal in society, human rites like laws protecting laws and children, modern clothing, capitalism, dividing the year into 12 months. The invention of steel, abstract art.
@OriginalBlace Men and women equal in society was an idea that was around long before the Celts. The ancient Egyptians did as well. Modern doesn't always mean better, and I think the Romans were clothed better than Celtic warriors who went into battle naked), and the Romans too were capitalists (they did take taxes, but built roads and provided protection). And it was the Romans, not the Celts, who came up with the modern year. Steel was also first made in Turkey and North Africa.
what movie?
FacistPikl 2 days ago
Pullo is Chuck Norris's great great great great great great grandaddy
rohontsiawaks 1 week ago
@rohontsiawaks Other way around, my friend.
skalexander 1 week ago
bullshit, its ridiculous how they put the romans withstanding the gauls axes like they were helding an umbrella under the rain, in the real world the roman pretty shields didnt last long agaisnt axes, only much latter did they get reinforced enough to withstand an axe attack. those legionaries would be dead
andresrojas22 2 weeks ago
@andresrojas22 You are right to say that they evolved their shield design - many sighted the use of leather coverings at Teutorburg for the weight of shields in the rain making them useless, however the Romans had already met & defeated the much vaunted Spartans & also the Crimbri (Nordic-Celtic people) & Carthaginians - this is after the Marius reforms where Shield walls are depicted stopping horses, arrows & pole weapons - whats more important was their systematic fighting
infokemp 2 days ago
@infokemp systematic fighting, discipline, all that is irrelevant to the fact that an axe hits the shield with enough force to crack it and even if it doesnt damage the shield the impact of the axe on the shield makes a painfull concussion on the soldiers arm that exhaust his energy very soon. i saw this show n the history channel of a recreation between 2 guys using shields, one used a sword and the other an axe. the one using the sword took like 4 axe blows 2 his shield and
andresrojas22 2 days ago
@andresrojas22 I am not saying that the axe is not a great weapon - the English Houscarls at Hastings used it against Norman Cavaliers(!) will great slaughter done to our enemy. However will I might say there is a great different between a modern & a Legionaries strength you might say the same about a Gaul or other enemy of the Romans. 1 on 1 you are probably right but a Warrior (out for personnel glory) vs Prof Troops (code of collective unit discipline) results are not certain
infokemp 2 days ago
@andresrojas22 P2 The use of the axe as part of a combined arms unit as in the English Houscarl Shieldwall or hogshead means you have comrades covering you from the stabs of the enemies short swords, if your comrades stand with the spear & another with a sword & shield to rush in & flank the man whose shield you are trying to split, if you have archers sniping then all the better - but this requires discipline & training the English under Hengest in 449 had this - Gauls did not.
infokemp 2 days ago
@andresrojas22 P3 If you talk about 449 or 1066 you see Nordic-Celtic prof Troops - a systematic approach to fighting like a machine (similar to Rome) in Marius or Ceaser's time the Gauls & Britons (Celts) fighting as Warriors (individual glory, skill & trying to fight individuals) 1 on 1 you're right few Romans where as good warriors but Romans fought as a military machine if I go & attack with a flax or axe or broad sword against ranks of Romans they strike from all angles as 1
infokemp 2 days ago
@infokemp s.thing like that b.4 breakie .organisation.
michaelroosendaal1 2 days ago in playlist heaven hell is like where i,m living at t, m,ment, u,treg!
@michaelroosendaal1 Right on lol
All the best
David
infokemp 2 days ago
@infokemp u speak of armies vs armies, discipline vs barbarian warfare, but my point is not of armies or unit organization, nor anything complex like that, its the simple fact that no one can take continuous axe blows to his shield without either having their shields broken to pieces or exhausting and hurting his arm. u dont see that in this video, u see the gauls smashing like crazy the romans shield without any consequence, thats deeply unrealistic
andresrojas22 1 day ago
@andresrojas22 I was just making conversation on the subject of history but I get your point. Check out my channel there is a series I made on the creation of England & the English migration to Britain, if you like the videos please subscribe.
All the best
David
infokemp 1 day ago
@infokemp his shield and after a couple of more blows his arm was in too much pain for him to keep taking more blows, in a battlefield situation he would have died since he could not raise his shield anymore
andresrojas22 2 days ago
I really miss this series!
oberstul 3 weeks ago
Someone like Lu Bu would plow through that shield wall like nothing.
asaqe3 1 month ago
decima
michaelroosendaal1 1 month ago in playlist heaven hell
i you don,t then they,ll decimated you ,4 sure 1 in 10
michaelroosendaal1 1 month ago in playlist heaven hell
Thanx :)
hanzik1000 1 month ago
Comment removed
Swallowed91 1 month ago
Movie?
hanzik1000 1 month ago
Comment removed
KratosSophia 1 month ago
@hanzik1000 HBO's Rome
AllieKatTwoTen 1 month ago
This is a rare clip where you actually see a legion fighting the way they did. Keeping fresh troops in front meant fewer losses, and pretty soon the enemy would tire out, resulting to breakthrough, panic and annihilation. Romans did lose a few battles, mostly thanks to idiot generals, but for centuries they didn't lose a single war.
SPQSpartacus 2 months ago 15
@SPQSpartacus Romans fought in formation as a unit - I have read their sword drill techniques influenced the British bayonet fighting in that they struck the enemy to their right, this enabled them to form wedge or strike the enemies flank thus protecting your comrade to the right. As the enemy raised his sword arm to strike he would expose his ribs to the sword strike of the Romans while they remained protected by their shields thus the enemy lost their front rank
infokemp 2 days ago
I like how the Romans kicked so much ass, they could have a brawl between themselves in the middle of battle and still come out victorious!
IrishFlogger 2 months ago
I like how they portrayed Marc Anthony as a total asshole.
Koalaheikki 2 months ago
@Koalaheikki
me too, i loved him as a cocky cunt xD
tharronn91 2 months ago
@Koalaheikki later on i like him more in the show ^^
killerrj8 2 months ago
2:14... is that sean penn?
777Zachary777 2 months ago
This is fucking awesome. They have even included the Roman way of changing the front rank on command. Only thing which is a bit strange is that the Centurion gives an order, and everyone hears it. Romans had banners, horns and such so that they could signal so everyone could hear orders.
VictumRoManius 3 months ago
@ConsvrgoTitanvRomani not stupid at all mate this is just a sily movie or tv series whatever.The barbarians killed half of romes army within 50 years and set up intelligent traps to ambush.
JordoF6 3 months ago
@JordoF6 yes,not stupid at all but in a good percent surely. Compared with the military genius of ROME they were nothing
Savithebest93 2 months ago
@JordoF6 Barbarians didn't win a battle against Rome until 40+ years after the time of the battle depicted in this video. And when they did, they destroyed only three legions. This was not even nearly half of Rome's army.
Crymson1 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
@Crymson1 Tariq Bin Zayad Defeat 100000 Eurpean By only12000
aniqlahori 1 month ago
@aniqlahori I don't see how this is relevant to anything. As a note, however, Roderic's strength at that battle was not even nearly 100,000.
Crymson1 1 month ago
@ConsvrgoTitanvRomani Look up Teutoburg.
sorrowsingsoftly 3 months ago
@ConsvrgoTitanvRomani
atleast they had the guts to fight them.
OGZxH4CKZOR1 3 months ago
Is there a single Youtube video with Rome/China etc that doesn't devolve into whatever-bashing?
Anonie324 3 months ago
At least Pullo got to eventually knock up Cleopatra
Monsterinabox 3 months ago
what the name of the video
flamycool 3 months ago
@flamycool HBO's Rome. 2 season series
TheGhostfacekilla86 3 months ago
what this movie name
flamycool 3 months ago
just imagine a modern roman army.
Hector13King 4 months ago
@ConsvrgoTitanvRomani They were far from stupid. Far in the sense that they couldn't contain their emotions :P
DestroyerOfSense000 4 months ago
what movie?
antonspi 4 months ago
@antonspi ROME
KingsofSparta 4 months ago
Do not fuck with Titus Pullo!
ahmedeox 4 months ago
NaNaNa-NaNaNa! France vs other guy
Mrhahahahatim 4 months ago
What FILM?
PeriferiaSud90 4 months ago
@PeriferiaSud90 Rome. Its a tv series from HBO. I have it on dvd.
captainbackflash 4 months ago
@ConsvrgoTitanvRomani What do you expect? They later became the french!
captainbackflash 4 months ago
@captainbackflash fuck you im french
tancrede4 4 months ago
@tancrede4 You see, I am right.
captainbackflash 4 months ago
@captainbackflash No. The French as they became was a Germanic tribe who came and ass-raped the remaining Roman presence in Gaul. And of course the Gallic population ;)
So no. For once we can't put another defeat upon the French...
rollespilleren 4 months ago
@rollespilleren Yes, you are right. But at least The romans fucked up their empire by themself. Decadence and the ability not to integrate other cultures in their own culture and learn from them was the biggest fault of the roman empire.
captainbackflash 4 months ago
@captainbackflash It's not necessarily that they didn't learn from other cultures, because they usually integrated some aspects of foreign culture into theirs, it's just that after hundreds of years of kicking ass, they finally became complacent and lazy, and allowed others to defend their empire instead of themselves.
AzzurroVincerebbero 4 months ago
@AzzurroVincerebbero
Much like what the USA is now doing.
Misterunnamed 4 months ago
@Misterunnamed Well they don't necessarily hire people to defend them, but they certainly are lazy and complacent. 1950s USA = 1st century Rome, 2010s USA = 3rd-4th century Rome
AzzurroVincerebbero 4 months ago
@AzzurroVincerebbero
Uhh, in the 1950s, the USA had a conscript (draft) army and was on par with the Soviets. In 2010, the USA has a full professional army and is the undisputed sole superpower of the world.
Intranetusa 3 months ago
@Intranetusa I actually just meant in terms of numbers. US army of 1950s > 2011. Btw I know what conscription is, thank you.
AzzurroVincerebbero 3 months ago
@AzzurroVincerebbero
Well, 3rd-4th century Rome also had a large army, it's total numbers were just as large as earlier centuries armies...except they had lesser quality troops and more barbarian auxiliaries.
Intranetusa 3 months ago
@Intranetusa
Haha undisputed.
Yeah, if Russia and China tried touching America, they would get raped,
only 1 US casaulty, billions of foreign.
ThebanPhalanx 3 months ago
@ThebanPhalanx
Yep, the US spends more on the military than China, Russia, Germany, France, and the UK combined.
Intranetusa 3 months ago
@ThebanPhalanx
You americans are full of shit,In Afghanistan and Iraq,with some russian,chinese and iranian weaponry,the US army was defeated by militias and civilians,keeping huge portions of land uncontrolled,not even daring to face them.......LOL
In equal circumstances,Russia and China would have more losses,but the USA would end defeated,due to its massive disadvantage in numbers.
The time of US weapons predominance(90´s to 2000) is over.
StellandBlood 3 months ago
@StellandBlood The americans will never understand that. They think they are untouchable or something ^^
killerrj8 2 months ago
@rollespilleren Yeah the Franks only became soft after the Middle Ages :P
DestroyerOfSense000 4 months ago
Great series btw ! i wonder why it ended so fast after only 2 seasons...
lekoucha 4 months ago
@lekoucha Simple answer: 1 mil $ per episode. But by Jupiter it's worth every penny. I'd give a million vampire flicks for another rome episode.
ahmedeox 4 months ago
Vorenus for Consul! I mean Emperor...er...fuck.
Noxshus 4 months ago
ROMA VICTORRRRR....AAARGHHH!
MrPetrov75 5 months ago
Is that it? I was just beginning to enjoy myself.
Washu1973 5 months ago
See how they use their swords? They sting you with them, they don't hack. One skillful sting and you are incapacitated. You fall down and they trample over you.
topperheartramada 5 months ago
SHIELDWAAALLLLLLL !!!!!
Oesterreich1156 5 months ago
Titus Pullo was a good warrior and soldier but he committed the cardinal sin in the Roman army you never break formation for anything
mattsmt20 6 months ago
@mattsmt20 - Not to mention that he even hit his superior officer XD Shouldn't that have gotten him the death penalty?
CrimsonGuard1992 5 months ago
Hey, I didn't know Romans have whistle :D
aminoacid1648856 6 months ago 11
@aminoacid1648856 oh, yes. at the sound of the whistle the guy in the front would switch poditions with the guy behind him. that way thay would always have fresh troops in the front line.
topperheartramada 5 months ago
@aminoacid1648856 greeks invented them like hundreds of jears before the romans
epicdraakje 1 month ago
@aminoacid1648856 They did. It's called fistula.
WolfhoundMercenary 2 weeks ago
@ConsvrgoTitanvRomani Did you know that it was first a barbariac thing to wear pants
PYDDZIExTHECRAFTER 6 months ago
please tell me the name of this movie
Bellikful 6 months ago
@Bellikful
this comes from an hbo series called "rome." It's not from a movie.
klesks8686 6 months ago
@Bellikful
The Eagle
battlecrow88 6 months ago
Is that it? I was just beginning to enjoy myself. :\
MrSpencer1337 7 months ago
Got to love HBO, may they never change.
Tyrfingr 7 months ago
@Tyrfingr Indeed, this HBO 'Rome' series is truely epic.
RedGoblinus 6 months ago
3 people have committed a TERRIBLE SACRILEGE, and will pay for it with their lives.
gregvs3 7 months ago 62
That guy voiced Soap in Modern Warfare 2.
macnos 7 months ago
i recently made a documentry about romes transition from republic to empire using footage from this series anyone who likes this period in histroy in welcome to check it out. there are two 8 minute segments
ovireenactor 7 months ago
13.TH!!!!!
pullo ftw
bluesk8erboi 8 months ago
ORGULHO DE TER SANGUE ITALIANO
willoxbr 8 months ago
Whats The Name of the movie?
bryanfury96 8 months ago
@bryanfury96 its not a movie its a tv series. HBO Rome
OriginalBlace 8 months ago
Also the gladiatorial arena could be seen as a sacrifice to the Gods as every galdiator had to swear his life to the di infernales and the combat was dedicated as an offering to the di manes or other gods; the event was therefore sacrificium in the strict sense of the term. so rome itself practiced human sacfrice on an industrial scale
OriginalBlace 8 months ago
@OriginalBlace I don't really think that is human sacrifice, as it was for the entertainment of the crowds, not for the gods. I may have been dedicated to the gods, but it wasn't actually for them. Detestable practice nonetheless. Utterly barbaric.
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy the big difference with the nazi killing jew thing is that they weren't shy about making it plain that they were. Also the allies have photographic evidence amoung other things and there are holocost survivers that testify that it happened so there a fair bit more evidence for the holocost
OriginalBlace 8 months ago
@OriginalBlace No, it was actually kept very secret. Most Germans were shocked when they heard the Jews had been murdered. We have photographic evidence of the Holocaust, and we have physical evidence of human sacrifice.
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy well i am a bit fussy on the holocost but alot of evidence for human sacrifice is more interpretational rather than concrete. Assuming that every bog body is human sacrifice rather than capital punishement or murder seems like wishful thinking to me. And whats your source that the death penalty was imposed for trivial crimes, i've never heard that before.
OriginalBlace 8 months ago
@OriginalBlace Julius Caesar (Commentarii de Bello Gallico). I know you are going to say that he is not trustworthy, but if he had made it up wouldn't he come up with something more shocking? And I don't really think 150 victims with axe blows to the head and mistletoe in their stomachs is really open to interpretation; what else could have happened?
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy well it could have been an isolated indecent. like the waco seige. Not a common part of american life. but it still happened. sometimes strange shit happens
OriginalBlace 8 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy where abouts in his book does he say it?
OriginalBlace 8 months ago
@OriginalBlace as i understand it he says that the most common form of punishement was the uncursion of fines and banning from religious services. Although i do remember reading somewhere that if they couldn't pay with gold they would have to pay with thier life.
OriginalBlace 8 months ago
@OriginalBlace I don't think that was really punishment, I think it was more because their gods preferred criminal blood, but if no criminals were around they'd have to give the gods their second choice. And I think the reason that the Romans mention it more than the Celts is because every time the Romans invaded, that was a Celtic crisis and they sacrificed people to get their gods on their good sides. In normal life, I don't suppose human sacrifice was that common. Nasty gods I must say.
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy well andrasta definetely but like i dont actually know any celtic gods that took human sacfrice. i think there is information that boudicca sacrificed roman officials to andrasta but i dont know if that was an established practice or because she wanted them to die humiliated. Govannon took sacrifices of metalwork thrown into water like streams or lakes which is where alot of celtic artifacts come from. Succellos was the god of justice but i dont think he did
OriginalBlace 8 months ago
@OriginalBlace Esus' victims were garroted, Taranis' were burned, and Toutatis' were drowned.
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy i cant find references to those sacrificial methods, whats your sources for them?
OriginalBlace 8 months ago
@OriginalBlace The Early Histories of the Ancient Celts, by Peter Boxall.
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy ahhk. ill have to have alook. Also i noticed that in ceasars book he has support for the existanceof an elite warrior class which he refered to as knights in book 6 chapter 15
OriginalBlace 8 months ago
@OriginalBlace interesting that ceasar states that vercingetorixes father was the ruler of all gaul as a unified state but had been assassinated causing the states the fall apart
OriginalBlace 8 months ago
@OriginalBlace Vercingetorix's father I think has always been somewhat of a mystery. I think we are fairly sure he was assassination (as most rulers of the ancient world), but how much do we really know about him? Do you have any books or websites that talk more about him?
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy the only ancient material sources on vercingetorix's father comes from ceasar's book i think. but im not 100% on that one. Also the only Celtic runic i know of was ogham which was used with Gaelic not the language of the Gauls or Britons which is called brythonic
OriginalBlace 8 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy interesting how the myth that the celts were illiterate. According to ceasar himself they wrote using greek characters
OriginalBlace 8 months ago
@OriginalBlace I thought they wrote in runic? Or was it only the more southerly Celts?
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy i think that was more the northern celts who wrote in runic. there are many gallic artefacts with greek characters on them that make no sense in greek
OriginalBlace 8 months ago
@OriginalBlace I'm no language expert, but is runic based on Greek? Maybe the southerly Celts adopted Greek letters that gradually morphed into runes as it traveled north? Or was runic a pure Celtic invention?
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy It is subject of discussion if the runic alphabet descents from the old italic alphabet, which may be influenced by the greeks - but it is in no way "invented" or "originated" by any celtic culture. In fact, the main cultural reference would be the eastern and western germanic tribes and I think the first mentioning would have been in 200 BC. Ogham has, as has been proved, no link to the germanic runic alphabet at all.
Kathrinoyo 8 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy interesting fact. his source for the celtic human sacfrice was the roman poet Lucan. He also says that it was written as propaganda as the romans had banned human sacfrice a few years before and thus were trying to say that they were superior people. Personally i believe that the human sacfrice thing is pure roman propaganda as no celtic sources even from the time when celtic legends and mythology and history were written down in ireland when the druids still functioned.
OriginalBlace 6 months ago
@OriginalBlace But, how would you explain Lindow Man and the 150 other skeletons found in the area? He was hit in the hit with an axe, then, while still alive, was garotted , then had his throat slit.
Dinoenthusiastguy 6 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy well im not sure about the 150 skeletons your refering to but im sure that lindow man was mugged. His numerous body injuries who signs of struggle and attack not execution his diet showed he was rich and celts wore their riches in the form of jewelry so my theory is that he was attacked, murdered, robbed and dumped in the bog by his attackers.
OriginalBlace 6 months ago
@OriginalBlace But muggers typically strike quickly, then run off with what they can. Lindow man lived for three hours after he was struck, then killed with a knife at the same time he was being garrotted (not a common pratice among muggers). He and many of the other 150 people also had mistletoe seeds in their stomachs, evidence that they were killed in a druid ceremony.
Dinoenthusiastguy 6 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy fair enough. well it still could have been capital puinishment
OriginalBlace 6 months ago
@OriginalBlace Possibly, but unlikely I think. They didn't give mistletoe in water or on food to those facing capital punishment, and it happened at a time of crisis (just as the Romans were invading).
Dinoenthusiastguy 6 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy also if human sacfrice was as common as cesear claimed it was it would be all over the world and there would be records of the customs in ireland. im not saying it never ever happened im just saying that i doubt it was as wide spread as the romans claimed it to be. Also i've still to come across celtic myths and legends or other records mentioning it. ie we know the vikings did it cause the viking sagas tell us they did. celtic myth tells of animal sacfrice but not human
OriginalBlace 6 months ago
@OriginalBlace Yes, I'm sure the Romans did exaggerate it for their own purposes. And I don't know why it isn't mentioned in any Celtic records. I might not believe it myself were it not for archaeological evidence.
Dinoenthusiastguy 6 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy Now you now!:-))))
MrPetrov75 5 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy does he say which ones it was to?
OriginalBlace 8 months ago
@OriginalBlace if you prefer games europa barbarorum is the best as far as historical accuracy. vanila rome total war is a joke as far as historical accuracy goes
OriginalBlace 8 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy well im not sure about it because he is claiming that they worship roman Gods and we know that they did not. you have to remember that he wants to give them a bad press especiialy the druids because the druids strongly oppossed roman rule. Also boudicca sacrificed them by crucifixion which was definetely not a common celtic practice
OriginalBlace 8 months ago
@OriginalBlace Picked up from the Romans, I assume. And where did he say anything about the Roman gods? And I know that Caesar was trying to give them a bad name, but why would he say the like to burn delinquents? If he had made this up wouldn't have said something more shocking?
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy He never mentions any cetlic Gods. He claims that the celts worshiped roman Gods. possibly interpretation or possibly him trying to justify his war to the roman people so it didn't seem like he was commiting cultural genocide
OriginalBlace 8 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy human sacfrice was rare but documented in ancient rome. after the battle of cannae they sacrificed 2 Gauls and 2 Greeks and buried them under the Forum Boarium in a stone chamber which had been used previously for other such sacrifices
OriginalBlace 8 months ago
@OriginalBlace It seems most of these cultures usually use animal sacrifice, but in times of desperation they would sacrifice humans. Not that it did them any good.
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
Comment removed
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
@OriginalBlace Chapter six, verse sixteen.6 (use Google translate if you don't speak Latin)
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy you should watch terry jones barbarians primitive celts epidisode. very accurate and very enlightening
OriginalBlace 8 months ago
@OriginalBlace I don't actually have a TV. Is this part of a TV series?
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy it is part of a tv series but its also on youtube. just type"terry jones barbarians celts" into the google search bar
OriginalBlace 8 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy actually ceasar says that the death penalty was rare the most common form of punishment being fines
OriginalBlace 8 months ago
@OriginalBlace Punishment for what sort of crimes?
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
Mass graves could easily been from battle. The head was very important in celtic society and would have been taken and buried in other rituals as it was the persons soul. Also having them steal your treasure is better than having them kill, butcher, rape and enslave all of you and leave nothing left like what rome did.
OriginalBlace 8 months ago
@OriginalBlace Nope. This grave was nowhere near any battlefield. No weapons were anywhere around there. They were murdered in cold blood. And many head collections were not of Celts, but of unfortunate Romans they captured or killed. And I agree, having someone butcher, rape, and enslave you is worst, so I feel for both the Romans and Celts enemies!
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy it could have been a small skirmish. weapons and armour are valuable so they would have been collected from the site so thats no evidence that they were murdered in cold blood. and how do you know that they were romans what proof?
OriginalBlace 8 months ago
@OriginalBlace They weren't Romans, disproving the idea that all the Celts lived in a harmonized utopia. They were probably some poor Celtic civilians that a bunch of druids decided to sacrifice. And one can see if people died in a battle or not (wounds and such) and these were all killed at once without a fight.
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy Or they were the bodies of soldiers or the victims of desease that were buried and their heads taken to be burying seperatly with goods.
OriginalBlace 8 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy Also the celts were very rich. From preroman gold mines in the pyrenees they would have extracted up to 70tons of gold and from that reigon alone. You need to watch terry jones barbarians primitive celts episode cause your mind is obviously full of misconceptions and sterio types rather than real acedemic information about the ancient celts
OriginalBlace 8 months ago
@OriginalBlace But do you think that that gold was evenly distributed among the Celtic tribes? No. Some wealthy mine owner took it all for himself.
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy the income from mines was spread as kings taxed the mining and spread the money through the community as part of celtic law.
OriginalBlace 8 months ago
@OriginalBlace Really? Can you show me where they found these Celtic laws? Or did you just make them up?
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy they are called the brehon laws, look them up. They were written down when christianity as introduced but predate it by a long shot
OriginalBlace 8 months ago
Somehow i think Boduognatus and his heavily armed Nervians would disagree that the celtic longsword was useless against romans.
OriginalBlace 8 months ago
@OriginalBlace I'm not so sure. A longsword is a slashing weapon, and thus spreads the force over the sheild. Seriously, have you ever tried to break a piece of plywood with a machete (or even an axe)? It is not easy.
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy type falx into google images search. You'll see a re-enactor smashing a historically accurate roman scutum with a slashing weapon. Also only about 20% of the pila would have effected the shields. It would have to be a direct hit as a glancing hit would bounce off. Also roman authors describe Celtic warriors as parrying pila or even catching them mid flight and hurling them back.
OriginalBlace 8 months ago
@OriginalBlace He is not using it as a slashing weapon in the picture, he is using it to thrust. And OK, he pierced it, but could he have killed the fully armoured soldier behind? I don't think so. There is a big difference between the ideal conditions of this test and a real battle. Real soldiers do not just stand there. I experiment with javelins and other weapons, and it is enormously hard to keep catch one aimed right at you, let along one among a fleet of them.
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy So what in the chaos of battle a roman shield was not invincible . also he is using the slashing part of the weapon. And also roman soldiers fighting the celts were just armoured in the same armour as the celtic best. iron helmet chain shirt. Also daggers and shortswords take way less effort to make than longswords and less materials thus are cheaper. That pretty basic blacksmithing knowledge right there.
OriginalBlace 8 months ago
@OriginalBlace Short swords would fall out of favour to longswords and longswords would dominate warfare for the next 1800 years. How is that inferior?
OriginalBlace 8 months ago
@OriginalBlace If you are in a one-on-one fight, with no shields, longswords are superior. However, they were the perfect weapon for a closely packed wall Roman formation.
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
Ceasar often remarked how skilled elite celtic warriors were like the Catuvellaunii royal guard of britain of fought like mounted infantry only with light chariots that they were incredibly skilled in using. Also Ceasar remarks that the Nervii were very well skilled at warfare and made complex manoeuvrings in the course of the battle that almost beat him. Roman legoinaires fighting against his forces however just got slaughtered
OriginalBlace 8 months ago
@OriginalBlace I'm not saying that they weren't skilled. Many of them were even more skilled than the Romans. And an army of elite Celts may be a match for Romans. However, Roman soldiers had their equipment paid for by the state. Thus, even poor soldiers were well armed, and the equipment was also standardized. With the Celts, they would have to buy it themselves. Thus, only rich chieftains could afford armour and good weapons.
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
And at the sabis the auxilleries may have been scatered early on but his force was primarily legionaires who got smashed. Infact it was the pitless hail of missiles shot by the Auxilaries that saved the legionaires and helped them drive the enemy back except the Heavily armed Nervians who stayed and fought to the very last man even making raparts out of thier own dead. Thats the actions of selfless devoted warriors no selfish people. Also they ambushed they roman's who were attacking refugees
OriginalBlace 8 months ago
@OriginalBlace Hmm... maybe. The Celts believed that if they were brave in battle they would be taken to heaven, so they would usually fight to the death. The fact is, Celts just loved fighting. The whole Celtic culture revolves around the warrior.
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
you wanna know what the roman greek wars took. a few battles and about 60,000 men. The roman celtic wars never ended and celtic civilization outlived roman civilization, Gaul alone took 8 years and 120,000 men and cost 30,000 roman lives. Compared to the fight the Gauls alone put up the mighty greek civilizations stand was pathetic. Mainstream societies cherished ignorance refuses to acknowledge the ancient celts who's society was much more like the modern world than romes.
OriginalBlace 8 months ago
@OriginalBlace Greece, when it was conquered, was right at the end of its golden period; it was in rapid decline, famine and disease were rampant, and most Greeks were to apathetic to lift a finger. Greece has an area of 131,990 km2. Gaul has 674,843 km2. Which do you think would be easier or take longer to conquer, and which could muster more men?
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
To be honest the idea that the Celts were barbarians compared to the romans is laughable. The celts had better hiegene, did drink water from LEAD PLUMBING thus werem't all dying of lead poinsing. Plus they didn't crucify people, commit genocide or watch people butcher each other or be eaten by animals in an arena for fun.
OriginalBlace 9 months ago
@OriginalBlace meant to say didn't drink water from lead plumbing thus weren't all dying of lead poisoning
OriginalBlace 8 months ago
@OriginalBlace First of all, the Romans drank water from lead pipes because they did not know it was poisons. Better hygiene? Would you call drinking blood out of someone's skull good hygiene? And the Celts were not "noble savages"; the druids burned people alive, tortured them, and yes, genocide was part of Celtic warfare. And many Celtic warriors did enjoy warfare and watching their enemies get hacked to bits. In truth, both civilizations were brutish and barbaric.
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy Actually there is no archeological evidence that the Druids practiced human sacrifice. Its just roman propaganda like the idea that the celts had no artwork, science, architecture, roads, or social organization what so ever like polybius claimed. Also celtic warfare was about taking peoples Gold not killing and enslaving. Plus where on earth did you get the drinking blood from skulls?
OriginalBlace 8 months ago
@OriginalBlace Also of all the surviving legends and information from the Celtic point of view i cant find a single reference to human sacrifice. Only animal sacrifice is mentioned. When the celts conquered early rome they took thier Gold and left. Also thier war with early rome was because roman dignitaries violated the law of nations against bringing arms to diplomatic meetings and murdered a chieftain. When rome conquered Gaul they butchered and enslaved 2 million
OriginalBlace 8 months ago
@OriginalBlace Well, maybe there is no direct evidence, but it is quite likely. And, when they conquered Rome they also set it on fire, destroying hundreds of years worth of Roman literature. You will also remember that Rome was in the end destroyed by the Celts. And they did indeed enslave many. I made a mistake, they did not drink blood from skulls, but at banquets they did drink mead from skulls. And the Celts favored means of execution was burning alive (you will remember that an army of...
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
...Celts under Boudica trapped over a hundred Roman civilians in a Roman temple and then set it on fire). As far as the other things you mentioned, I have seen their artwork, and it is indeed beautiful. However, as far as architecture, roads, and social organization, the Celts do not even come close to the Romans. I am not trying to defend the Romans, they were brutes as well (some of them), but you must not get the idea that the Celts were noble, kind, sophisticated people. They were not.
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy Boudica was different. She was out for revenge. What she did was out of character for celtic convention. Also the celts very noble and sophisticated campared to the common misconceptions about them cherished by to many. They were every bit as much a civilization as the romans and the greeks and i will never feel at peace until that is the commonly accepted view and until then i will fight for the memory of my ancestors.
OriginalBlace 8 months ago
@OriginalBlace In reality, the only time they united was when there was a large threat to their whole existence, e.g. a Roman army. Most of the time, they were just squabbling tribes. They were not one civilization. They did not create roads that linked their whole territory, or create great literature, or make remarkable scientific achievements. How many things that we treasure today came from the Celts? Not many. How many by the Romans and Greeks? Lots.
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy thats horseshit. The Greek world suffered greatly from political de-centralisation. yet we still call it greek civilization. There are also hints in celtic legend of grand unified celtic states which a lack of evidence for is not sufficient evidence against. Also men and women being equal in society, human rites like laws protecting laws and children, modern clothing, capitalism, dividing the year into 12 months. The invention of steel, abstract art.
OriginalBlace 8 months ago
@OriginalBlace Men and women equal in society was an idea that was around long before the Celts. The ancient Egyptians did as well. Modern doesn't always mean better, and I think the Romans were clothed better than Celtic warriors who went into battle naked), and the Romans too were capitalists (they did take taxes, but built roads and provided protection). And it was the Romans, not the Celts, who came up with the modern year. Steel was also first made in Turkey and North Africa.
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago