and of course i'm speaking of the great roman empire. the greatest the urth had ever known. put egypt on their knees.

my ancestors, the scotti, all came from north of hadrian's wall. we were the pagans or heathens.

that is according to the roman legion who built a wall to help keep us out.

we were wild people, w/o redeeming social value.

later we fought the english and did well.

not good to be a slave to the romans..

People ask how did the empire fall..
but if one studies the Romans enough
you'll appropriately change the question
to..

How did the Romans manage to keep it
going for so long..!!

You could have asked Italy for reparations

As opposed to being a slave in other cultures
of the time?

Roman slaves could do very well for themselves,
, some had great relationship with their masters,
became the wives, got freed by their masters,
inheretances, etc.

Your owner could kill you or free you, but if one
happened to be in a good Roman citizen household
or estate, life could be easier than trying to make it
on your own as a free person non-Roman citizen.

Depends how you look at it, one could say
the walls were to keep your forefathers in,
like a ghetto for 'barbarians'..

Hadrian's wall turned out to be an enormously
expensive project, and in the bigger picture
occupying Britain was Rome's "Afghanistan".

one could argue that but it might be weak.

they extended as far north as they could and still keep their supply lines intact.

once they started meeting resistance they built a defensive wall. yes, to keep the riff-raff out.

but if the legion was strong enough, had enough slaves and supplies they'd have pushed to the far north end.

but they didn't do that. they set up a defensive perimeter and dug in. always a bit of dissonance in the picture for sure.

It makes you wonder if these empires are worth all the trouble. Yessir, Rome crashed. Although fast forward to today and the people of Italy still have a decent life style. The British empire crashed too slowly and a little more quietly. And they still have a good life style over there as well. But the food is much better in Italy.

i think there has to be a bunch of willing citizens. pay taxes and go along with the program, that sort of thing.

when the dissonance builds up to a certain point and critical mass is reached, then katy bar the door.

johnson's war in asia to help the catholic vietnamese to defeat the national buddhists..

well that was one test; i'm sure there'll be others as time goes forward.

It was about priorities, Caledonia didn't have a lot to offer
for all the cost and effort.
Gen. Gnaeus Julius Agricola campaigned in Caledonia
for years (76-84 AD) and got good results in the battle
of Mons Grapius.. He built a series of settlements and
fortifications.



Romans built the Antonine and Hadrians but
they didn't just dig in and statically defend the
walls..They conducted punitive actions northward
as required.
Septimus Severus campaigned North (208-211 AD)
in a major offensive but the barbarians were not
willing to engage. [campaign cut short by illness
and death of Septimus Severus] .
The Romans also conducted punitive actions to the
South of those walls..They were strategic structures
defining the boundary of the empire, not a line where
troubles ended]] ...They withdrew the boundary to
Hadrians to better consolidate, as it was more
practically manageable.

Here you can see how forts dotted both sides:

the marines did the same thing around khe sanh. of course they had a little help from airpower side of the bizness.

i still think if it had been "profitable" they'd (romans) would have converted the heathen.

the ocean allowed the northern clans to interact with ireland and the mainland.

A slave is still a slave. Totally dependent upon others and unable to determine or enhance his self worth. One's destiny subject to the whims of another.

Better to be a free man and gather fa-ggotts to warm your hut in the winter than to be a slave in a castle.

And that is the difference between a free man and a communist. One values self determination.

In the times Gus is refering to, slavery was everywhere, and sure folks didn't necessarily like being someones slave, yet also didn't mind subjugating others in order
that they could have slaves of their own.

Taxes were largely imposed on the conquered
who were not Roman citizens within the Empire
but made up the bulk of the empire.
If you were enough value to the Romans, they
might exempt your particular people from tribute
and taxes, without being a citizen.

Taxes on Non-Romans varied from heavy collections
to none at all, also dependent on the approach/whim
of the particular Roman governor of the province you
were in.

Romans did pay a variety of taxes, but very moderate
percentages %... the tax reforms of Diocletian in the
troubled 3rd century, were the ones that hit Romans
the hardest.

Slaves being such a large integral part of society
attracted a number of taxes (ie freeing or selling
slaves) and a tarrif on importing slaves.

Most of the slaves came from Africa in Rome and everywhere else. some had children with the African women. and once blacks overtook Rome it was the end for them... just as it is happening in the USA .. blacks cannot rule any civilized country.. they never evolved long enough to have any common sense.. do you understand now?

it's looking like they (who are they?) have decided to blend the cultures and races in the us and elsewhere. maybe that's all they know to do at this point. the highland scots were a unified group pretty much versus the english and roman mixture.
if one wishes to paint broadly with a wide brush, it looks like the socialistic cities ran by black mayors are somewhat antagonistic toward the countryside which is highly republican which translates roughly into capitalism.
the highland scots were adverse to being ruled by the roman invaders and fought them tooth and nail. winning some and losing some, but mostly the romans didn't venture far from the fortifications in england.
but politics have always made for interesting bedfellows. the new administration will probably be strong on advance food stamps and the farmers will applaud, go along, and encourage the same.

so, one again the country holds together because of interlocking self interests from one end to the other.

The Roman were pagans and heathens too.

Apparently those eyetie clowns didn't know how to build a wall either as it didn't keep any of the lunatics in.

The Caledonians were not subjugated but they
were somewhat subdued by Rome, accordingly
they were convinced that it was not in their own
best interests in giving Rome a regular hard time.

Mountainous regions be they in the North of Roman Hispania, Transalpine Gaul, or highlands Caledonia,
were typically the last areas Rome wanted to spend
it efforts - unless necessary.

i certainly agree and can easily understand it. narrow passes rife with ambush possibilities, disappearing into think timber (back then), etc.

our own outlaws typically ran to the hills after a crime, or to the deep swamps. both provided difficulties for the trackers & le.

the scotti had the advantage of knowing the landscape very well because they lived there. the romans had to learn.

and learning requires a tuition to be paid nearly everytime. except it may be free in the future?

Some learnt faster than others...

9 AD, Varus and his legions got destroyed
in the Touteburg by Arminius, yet in 16 AD,
Germanicus and his legions showed the
Arminius and his Germanics a thing or two.

Germanicus didn't have a lot of experience
but history shows he had standout ability
right from the beginning of his military commands..
. and he faced Arminius who had extensive experience
in the Roman army before betraying the trust put in
him and leading Varus into a trap.

But having such extensive knowledge of the Romans
and employing the terrain to attack the Romans
at their most vulnerable, didn't work out against
the talents of Germanicus... Arminius may have
got a little over confident thinking the Romans
would again be a walk over, like in 9 AD.

Germanicus led some big campaigns in 'germania inferior'
and hammered them,.. he wanted to keep going
but Tiberius finally called it off and Germanicus
was posted to the far East of the Empire.

In the case of Transalpine Gaul, Julius Caesar
finally had enough of the high country tribes
and subjugated them along with all of Gaul.

In earlier yrs the tribes of alpine Gaul would head
south and harrass Roman interests on and near
the coast of the Mediterranean.
this schitt eventually came to a head in 102 BC,
when Gen. Gaius Marius (Battle of Aquae Sextiae)
defeated the tribes, which included Germanics.



******

Roman Hispania you can see was largely annexed
by the time of Augustus...
The Iberian peninsula came into Roman hands
after the defeat of Carthage some two centuries
earlier , and gradually Rome pretty much subdued
and pacified all the tribes .. that pocket to the north
held out the longest, not necessarily coz they were
the toughest, but in part coz they didn't pose too much
of a problem to Roman interests in Hispania... but they
too were eventually dealt with and absorbed.

read sir jhon glubbs...fate of empires....you will see how empires all end up.....very good short read....bob

Actually it's kind of hard to understand. Because the blacks didn't take over Rome. The Goths did.

[quote=Starman]Some learnt faster than others...

9 AD, Varus and his legions got destroyed
in the Touteburg by Arminius, yet in 16 AD,
Germanicus and his legions showed the
Arminius and his Germanics a thing or two.

Germanicus didn't have a lot of experience
but history shows he had standout ability
right from the beginning of his military commands..
. and he faced Arminius who had extensive experience
in the Roman army before betraying the trust put in
him and leading Varus into a trap.

But having such extensive knowledge of the Romans
and employing the terrain to attack the Romans
at their most vulnerable, didn't work out against
the talents of Germanicus... Arminius may have
got a little over confident thinking the Romans
would again be a walk over, like in 9 AD.

Germanicus led some big campaigns in 'germania inferior'
and hammered them,.. he wanted to keep going
but Tiberius finally called it off and Germanicus
was posted to the far East of the Empire.




[/quote

]I always wondered why Varus didn't have scouts out, or some guys on point.

'

starman, you offer good insight and history of the romans. seems like they were hardly a steady state or level state enterprise. they were growing or losing ground about all the time. they were winning or losing as it were. egypt's economy was much related to the nile river and how much it's presence could produce. rome's well being was based upon imperial merchantilism.

What amuses me most about this thread is that the two greatest (arguably) military nations in the world turned into market gardeners and fish and chip shop owners.

yeah. somebody will come along shortly and just argue that it's just a case of natural evolution. no problem they'll say, it happens all the time.

Rome started from a relatively insignificant local
small handful of tribes And grew a vast empire,
which requires more winning than losing... and
some give and take.

They initially battled the surrounding Latin tribes
after such forming alliances with them where
if someone attacked part of that alliance the others
had to come to their assistance..with such approach
and growing combined strength they gradually took
over the Italian peninsula and well beyond... in that
time there was the Social War (91-87 BC) where such
Latin allies revolted coz they were supplying lots of
soldier manpower but not getting the benefits the
Romans were.. the result was Romans extended
their rights to them.. and the Romanization of Italy.

****

So they went from strength to strength and this
also happened as they conquered more distant
lands and peoples... Some became very good
allies, could earn Roman citizenship and all the
benefits offered [after a period of service in the
non-legionary auxiliary forces] .. the reforms
of Augustus made the auxilia part of the standing
Roman army.

When it's said the Romans "conquered" that doesnt
mean pacified as a whole... Caesar conquered all
of Gaul, but was still dealing with ongoing skirmishes
and even major revolts....about 50% of Roman efforts
on the battlefield, we're dealing with such.
When Caesar was planning to embark on his ambitions
in the new lands of Britannia, he had to first deal with a
serious revolt across areas of Gaul, that was targeting
his legions quartered in Gaul for the winter ((at that time
military campaigns were mostly seasonal, but Caesar
was know to force march his legions through winter
snow to deal with belligerents if necessary )).

Prior to the reforms of Marius, one required a minimum
of wealth to be a legionary, this excluded many Romans
from joining the army.. Marius abolished the requirement
and many laborers (off the rural lands) joined the army.
It was still hard - physically demanding as a soldier,
but it offered benefits you don't get as a farm laborer.
Their background in physical labor also made for a
more hardy soldier.. A real benefit considering what
life as a legionary was like.

One things certain, Rome didn't last well over a 1000 years being kinder gentler.

Got to have real law and order.

ah for the return of the days of charles bronson. that was one man who knew how to solve multiple problems.

The democrats are cheating, lying, and thieving anti-American liberal socialist communist marxist politicians which need to be ostracized ASAP. They must forfeit the election now. They were caught as traitors to the country during a national emergency. There are hundreds of guilty democrats and some republicans. We can start with the democrats in the US congress and work our way thru the ranks to state congress. Do not forget all the obama administration too.