Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Invicta" channel.

  1. Probably because the guide translated as that. At the time it was common to accomunate gods with similar charateristics.
    2
  2. Do not forget the story of Odaenathus of Palmyra. Savior of the Roman Empire in one of its lowest moments (his wife, not so much).
    2
  3. Cerberus' name derived from an indo-european root that means "the spotted one". So yes. Even Hades, the king of the afterlife, named his three headed monster-dog "Spot".
    2
  4. Practically what the tribes did to each other.
    2
  5. In ancient times guerilla worked only up to a certain point, because you couldn't hide your crops and, once they had been burned, your people could only starve through winter. That's why many times you see the allied commanders pressing for a battle when they should have known better. Not only. Arminius coalition was in good terms with some tribe in the east that didn't participate to the battle, but could have helped the collegates during winter, but obviously they would have been a lot less willing to feed someone that didn't fight.
    2
  6.  @RagingDong  The Roman "ideal" battle deployment in republican times was with half of the army provided by Rome and Roman colonies and half by the Italic allies. That's why the social war had been a hard struggle for Rome. They were fighting vs. the same tactics and equipment.
    2
  7. "Air!" From the accounts, they were so packed that it became hard to breathe.
    2
  8. Mark Antony accepted the same offer, and it didn't go that well either. In the later successful invasions of Mesopotamia, the Romans simply descended the course of Euphrates, that's what Crassus should have done.
    2
  9. He could have use them to chase the Parthian supply lines. The Parthians needed a lot of things to fight. Water for the horses, arrows... Surena prepared his supply lines carefully, but they were not invulnerable. This would have given him the initiative, since it would have forced the Parthians to play defensively. Even during the retreat. Several times Roman armies retreated in square formations, so protecting themself from the enemy cavalry. Mounted archers could inflict losses almost without risk, but they were slow in doing it, and the city was only a day of march distant. With the perspective of not acieving a decisive victory, the cataphracts would have been tempted to charge the Romans, so giving them an enemy they could fight in close combat. Mind that the cataphracts were nobles, so their loss was hard to replace.
    2
  10.  @mirrownak5772  It was actually Tiberius that had the best chances. He was steamrolling through Germania with his usual style, "slow and inevitable as the continental drift" when he had been recalled by Augustus. Germanicus was mainly leading a private campaign for personal promotion.
    2
  11. So there is a nation called "Illyria" somewere? Or, to you, there are no people whose ancestors were Romans?
    2
  12. Add that anyone could see the ingredients and the way you prepared them. There were no secrets.
    2
  13. Only full citizens could fight in the army, and to be a full citizen you must have a certain income. The Spartan laws on inheritage were bound to reduce the full citizens (Spartiates), and so the army since: 1) Spartans could only own land, not commerce. 2) inheritance had to be equally divided among sons. 3) Spartiates had to sit in a Syssitia, and each member was required to contribute monthly with 77 litres of barley, 39 litres of wine, three kilograms of cheese, 1.5 kilograms of figs, and ten Aegina obols, so you had to be pretty rich to sit in one. This way, families with many sons (that could have contributed to the army) became too poor to be full citizens, while the wealth concentrated in fewer and fewer families with few sons.
    2
  14. "panis ac perna", ham sandwich. There were several recipies. IE the bread was flavored with must, and the ham cooked in dried fig water.
    2
  15.  @Woodsie_Lord  So you don't konw what an argument is. Being "Arminius, savior of the Germanics" '30s narrative, is an argument. The Germanics not identyfing themself as such, is an argument. Teutoburg being the apex of a struggle between Pro-Roman and Anti-Roman factions between western Germanics (that went on well past Teutoburg), is an argument. You are talking about "genocide", not me. I don't have to defend anything.
    2
  16. Illiria was a province that revolted. It had to be conquered back at any cost. Germania was not a province and was not worth such an effort to create one.
    2
  17. Republican Rome was an oligarchy and the empire was basically a south American dictatorship.
    2
  18. Those are not books, those are waxed tablets with some sheet of papyrus above. However books would have been anachronistic, but not of that much. They had been invented in I century BC and rapidly spreaded. The poet Martial was amazed on how small the Aeneid was in book format.
    2
  19. Elhanan, son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite, killed Goliath (Sam. 21-19)
    2
  20. The TV series "Rome".
    2
  21. Since slaves were required to obey to their masters, and even lying for them, the testimony of a slave could be considered in a trial only if torture had been used. Since it was a legal obligation, when a slave already wanted to talk, it was enforced quite leniently. A pair of hits with a rod, and you could consider yourself tortured. As for the "stomach", the "cursus honorum" of a high class Roman started with ten years as military tribune. As such, he probably ordered harsher punishments on his own legionaries.
    2
  22. Not her wole life, but until her father (and husband in some case, since there were several degrees of marriage in rome) was alive. Since women could inherit, and tended to be younger, in case of the upper classes even much younger, that their husbands, Rome was full of rich widows that could do everything they wanted.
    2
  23. Who is the best illyrian general?
    2
  24. The 10th was raised personally by Caesar, so it was Caesar that had to pay for it.
    2
  25.  @SaunKrystian  Romans were not known for their compromises. Soldiers were subject to the autority of their commander to the point that he could decide to decimate them. They were ciizens after the discharge.
    2
  26.  @Argos-xb8ek  Fact is that we know nothing of Carthaginian slaves, and that was literally the story of a Roman slave. We have hundreds of accounts of similar stories for ancient Rome. In the electolar lists of Herculaneum 44.5% of the names were of "liberti" (freed slaves).
    2
  27. In the migration era, those were mass migrations of entire populations. Federations of tribes that gathered togheter exactly because the Romans could field tens of thousands of professional soldiers, so you needed hundreds of thousands of tribal warriors to beat them. For the pre-migration era armies, the difference is logistic. The ancient world was much more interconnected than the medieval one. That means that you could feed those tens of thousands of men by mining gold in iberia and using it to buy grain in Egypt. In middle age, apart for few merchants, trade was limited to the immediate neighborood.
    2
  28. At the peak of its westward expansion, the Han dinasty occupied the Tarim basin, while at the peak of its eastward expansion Rome touched the shores of the Caspian sea. At that point the two cultures were separated "only" by about 1600-1700 km of land (plus the width of the Caspian sea), thats a long distance, but not incredibly long (is practically the lenght of nowadays Turkey), and that distance was north of the Parthian Empire. At that point, had they known each-other better, there could have been a mutual goal to cut the middleman out.
    2
  29. Rome abandoned the idea of conquering Germania when Augustus recalled Tiberius while he was steamrolling through it. Germanicus led a campaign for personal promotion. He needed victories, not to conquer anything. Tiberius recalled him when he retained he had promoted himself enough.
    2
  30.  @Dayrahl  41.9028° N, 12.4964° E The "Franks" speak a Romance language. Christianity is a Roman religion. There are not many worshippers of Wothan around, are they?
    2
  31. It was a form of diplomacy. Mind that those practices were developed when Rome was one of the city-states of Latium. To resort to the priest embassy was the way to say to the involved neighbour "we are serious on that matter. We involved gods. If nothing changes, it will be war in 33 days". At the same time, it reassured the other city states that Rome didn't attack without warning (a thing that could have persuaded the others to start a prehemptive war without warning).
    2
  32.  @concernedcitizen6313  He's not an academic. He's an hobbyst.
    2
  33.  @potato88872  As said, there were at least two stable Roman commercial outposts in southern India, and Roman coinage had been found in Indochina.
    2
  34. He invaded their lands and divided part of them among their neighbours, weakening them further. So yeah, badass answer, but not really a victory.
    2
  35. In reality the battle of Teutoburg is more similar to the loss of almost two legions led by Cotta and Sabinus at the hands of Ambiorix in 53BC. What had been decisive in both the battles is that Both Ambiorix and Arminius had the luxury of leading the Romans into the trap they prepared. Ambiorix because Cotta and Sabinus foolishly trusted him, Arminius because, since he was the leader of the Roman scouting cavalry, he was effectively in command of the Roman column he wanted to destroy.
    2
  36. By killing them all. Destroying the crops and letting them starve to death. That's why guerrilla in antiquity worked only up to a certain point.
    2
  37. That later became the king of the Cherusci, when the pro-Roman faction got rid of Arminius.
    2
  38. The gear was personal property. Legionaries paid for it (the cost of their gear was detracted from their salary), but probably, at the end of the service, they could choose to keep it or sell it back to the legion.
    2
  39. The losses for the Romans were very light. In ancient battles losses happened mainly after the formation broke, during the subsequent chasing of the fugitives, and the Roman formation had not even be close to be broken in any phase of the battle. From what happened in other similar battles we can say, the Romans didn't lose 1000 men at Idistaviso. It had been an one-sided slaughter.
    2
  40.  @marcquestenberg8385  And what a battle fought more than a century later has to do with Idistaviso? (probably) in 167, a force of 20.000 Romans had been defeated in the Battle of Carnuntum. So they experienced heavy casualties. At Idistaviso the Romans won the battle, so the losses for the Romans were very light. In ancient battles losses happened mainly after the formation broke, during the subsequent chasing of the fugitives, and the Roman formation had not even be close to be broken in any phase of the battle. From what happened in other similar battles we can say, the Romans didn't lose 1000 men at Idistaviso. It had been an one-sided slaughter. Sorry, pretended and fantasy battles doesn't count as real history, nor what you think should have happened to fit your taste.
    2
  41.  @marcquestenberg8385  Pretended sources and fantasies doesn't count. Had you know a real source reporting 20-30.000 legionaries lost, you would have already quoted it. You didn't because you know it's bullshit.
    2
  42.  @marcquestenberg8385  I've not to search for other people's delusions. Is who claim that has the burden of the proof. Pretended historians and fantasies doesn't count. Had you know a real historian reporting 20-30.000 legionaries lost at Idistaviso, you would have already quoted him. You didn't because you know it's bullshit.
    2
  43.  @marcquestenberg8385  "search the net for" stand for "Marc Questenberg can't justify the load of bullshit he just said. He can't provide any source or any name for his childish delusions. So he's trying to make me lose time searching for something that doesn't exist out of his head". I've not to search for your fantasies. Is who claim that has the burden of the proof. Had you known ANYTHING talking 20-30.000 legionaries lost at Idistaviso, you would have long quoted it. You didn't because you know that anything you said is bullshit. In case your limited mind had not yet understood it. You didn't provide any source for your bullshit. You didnt'provide any historian backing your bullshit. You had not been able to quote any historical work backing your bullshit. So all you said is bullshit.
    2
  44.  @dittmannrudolfrohr2149  Tacitus, Annales, Book 2-18 Magna ea victoria neque cruenta nobis fuit. quinta ab hora diei ad noctem caesi hostes decem milia passuum cadaveribus atque armis opplevere, repertis inter spolia eorum catenis quas in Romanos ut non dubio eventu portaverant. miles in loco proelii Tiberium imperatorem salutavit struxitque aggerem et in modum tropaeorum arma subscriptis victarum gentium nominibus imposuit. It was a great victory and without bloodshed to us. From nine in the morning to nightfall the enemy were slaughtered, and ten miles were covered with arms and dead bodies, while there were found amid the plunder the chains which the Germans had brought with them for the Romans, as though the issue were certain. The soldiers on the battle field hailed Tiberius as Imperator, and raised a mound on which arms were piled in the style of a trophy, with the names of the conquered tribes inscribed beneath them.
    2
  45.  @dittmannrudolfrohr2149  Apart from the fact that, having I done you the favor of answering to your question, you could even have thanked. Have you some better source? Or are you here just to write some bullshit like Marc above?
    2
  46.  @dittmannrudolfrohr2149  That's evidently not all you are doing since, after I made you the favor of answering your question and provided a source, you asked me "Nothing from the Bible?" So I'm now asking you. Have you something better? Or are you here just to write bullshit like Marc above?
    2
  47.  @dittmannrudolfrohr2149  I never said I tried hard or made any effort. I made you the favor of answering your question and provided a source. Then you asked me "Nothing from the Bible?" Because dismissing the others' sources without being able to provide anything better is the favourite way for ignoramus like you to pretend to seem intelligent without doing any effort to really learn something.
    2
  48.  @dittmannrudolfrohr2149  I'm not mad. I only recognised you are an ignoramus pretending to know something.
    2
  49. Caracalla extended Roman citizenship to all the inhabitants of the Empire in 212AD. A barbarian in 3rd century was someone that was not born in the Empire.
    1
  50. 28 legions of professional soldiers permanently paid and equipped at the expense of the State. During the 2nd Punic war, the legionaries were every Roman citizen that could afford the equipment. Think of the size of conscript armies in respect to that of professional armies.
    1