Why are people who fought the Romans so romanticized?

>galatic empire
Interesting never heard of this galatic empire.
>jedis
oh.

Generally speaking; the Romans were so consistently effective for so long that anyone capable of challenging them was worthy of note.

Beyond this there is the propaganda value of building up your enemy in word so your victory is that much more grand.

Romans often admired their foes and would remember them fondly after their subjugation.

Because the romans are total and complete cunts worthy of being despised as a collective and not enough is known about the slaves pov in the 3rd servile war, the britons, or the carthaginians to make them worse than the Romans.

So the individual gets to sprinkle whatever ideals they have into them to make them seem much better than the comparatively cuntish Roman shits.

This also explains why
Aren't romanticized as heavily, we know more about them and their motivation and know that they weren't moralistically far removed from those Roman pieces of shit.

God damn i fucking hate Romans.

>Tunisian
Stop driving trucks into people.

No
This

no
tunisia es white

I would say Mithridates and pontus would be more romanticized if more people knew they existed

Hannibal go to bed you are drunk

Boudicca because muh feminism essentially, even though she eventually got her shit pushed in

Why in an age of perennial and ubiquitous anti-imperialist sentiment, do the proliferators of this hatred make films lionizing those who resisted the greatest imperium?
Hmm, i have no idea desu.

>Resist Romans
>Get (((Roman)))ticized.
They always find a way huh?

WUZ

By the examples you mentioned the Romans ultimately defeated them, so I guess they wanted them to seem more grand to make the victory that much sweeter and honorific for future readers.

Can you find similar romanticized stories about some of the Sassanid/Parthian kings or Visigoths or hell even Brennus?

>Not everyone is romanticized, Mithradates, Selecids, Philip of Macedon,

Don't forget about Zenobia

t. Vercingetorix.

>what is vae victis

You fags know I'm right. It's easier to romaniticize in a vacuum, you sprinkle in a bunch of your own sensibilities onto characters and make them appealing. All three people OP mentioned operated in a relative historical vacuum. We're not sure Spartacus didn't want to free slaves so lets say he did, we're not sure the Carthaginians did kill babies so lets say they didn't, we're not sure the Iceni in particular were going around sacrificing humans so lets say they didn't and then lets all say they were freedom fighters and not in fact every bit the tyrannical, despotic and merciless savages the Romans were.

Tunisia is 100% high quality olive oil

>Boudicca
>defeating romans
>ever

what

>we really wuz Phoenician though
DAS RITE

spotted the barbarian

kek, nice catch
>WE WUZ CHRISTSHUNS BEFORE JESUS N SHIET

A battle =/= A period of warfare

ay

>(((History Channel)))

>>Hannibal
One of the greatest general

>>Spartacus
A slave who put the republic in danger

>>Boudicca
Hot redhead ass

It seems that they all have valid reasons to be romanticized

>tfw you will never live in the timeline where Carthage won

>Hannibal
A truly great general that brought hell to the romans and gave them one of their most crushing defeats in history. Crossing the alps and being completely alone in roman territory is a very nice story for romanticizing
>Spartacus
"muh freedoms" caused a lot of trouble for the romans, but I don't think he was that significant apart from how he helped form the third triumvirate by advancing crassus and pompeys careers. The 1960 stanley kubrick movie really brought him to fame
>Boudicca
a STRONG INDEPENDENT WOMYN standing up to the roman oppressors is a great story for anyone looking for that kind of stuff. In reality her rebellion was crushed by the romans within months and was ultimately irrelevant

No one ever talks about Mithridates, Phillip II, Pyrrhus or Pontus. These 3 are mainly romanticized because of pop culture (hannibal not as much as the others)

>you don't resemble these ancient people who were a mix of Near Eastern colonies, local Berber tribesmen, and Southern European settlers
>because you were corrupted by invading Near Easterners, Berbers, and Southern Europeans

the Greek characters chi and rho together like this is a christian symbol standing for CHRist.

Zenobia is also romanticized though

>thread about romanticized enemies of Rome
>no mention of Mark Antony and Cleopatra

Veeky Forums...

Antonius did nothing wrong. Augustus a shit.

Modern Tunisians have no Phoenician blood. Stop wewuzing

>The Colossus of Nose

>plebeii with opinions
nonetiamiterum.papyrus

Mark Antony was the true heir to Caesar, Augustus just spread false rumors of the 'wicked stepmother' trope and the fucking plebs ate it up

tudemensfrater.stele

Marc Antony was an Asiatic decadent who had his head so far up Cleopatra's inbred vagina that he thought he could subvert the Republic and be "Pharaoh" over honest Roman Citizens.

Pic related is the true example of honest Roman virtue. He and the First Citizen showed what happens when Asiatics think they can turn Rome into a servile "monarchy."

>tfw Augustus murdered Julius Caesar's biological son

REE

Everybody loves an underdog, dude. They might also be some small source of national pride to the individual in that 'My ancestor :)' sort of way.

I imagine it's also pretty easy to depict the Romans as villains and anyone fighting against them as heroes. Romans = big bad bullies coming to oppress the locals and destroy their cultures, Anyone Else = brave individuals standing against impossible odds to fight for their homeland.

God I fucking hate this channel

>muh boudicca
>la strong female warrior leader
>massacred thousands of civilians including women and children
>gets utterly BTFO in one battle because Britons can't into basic tactics

Watling Street best day of my life senpai

>Hannibal
>romanticized
Movies and Tv shows literally portray him as a psychopathic serial killer/cannibal

>similar romanticized stories about some of the Sassanid/Parthian kings
>Rome fights these dude for hundreds of years
>the only major state to actually put up a challenge to Rome for most of its history
>can't think of anyone but Khosrau or whoever poured gold down Crassus' throat

You got my noggin' joggin' friendo. I need to read more about them goobers.

t. Hannibal's dad

the Romans didn't

THE TRUE RULERS OF ROME

Why are there no proper records of titty monster's in the historical past?
Are they a later invention? Did the people of classical antiquity have to suffer a lifetime of DFC?

khosrow was a sassanid king

settle down Chaim

>Hannibal
Most likely the legendary status of Hannibal's invasion that continued to capture Roman (and later Western) imaginations long after Carthage was destroyed.
>Spartacus
Mix of modern media (tv and movies) and being used as a popular icon in Marxist and Socialist movements.
>Boudicca
British circlejerking

What about these two ?

Spartacus was a kubrick film?

You autistic?

Slightly

Figured so. Otherwise you would know why Marc Anthony and Cleopatra are romanticized

craftypunic.jpg

[citation needed]

Merchant master race

Holy fuck I didn't even notice that
What the shit is this

>tfw I played Epirus in RTW2 and after a huge number of tries finally subdued rome then quit because it got boring afgter that

>implying that mattered after Caesar publicly adopted Octavian as his successor

The Romans themselves romanticized them. Hannibal was basically the bogeyman to Roman children

KÄNGZ

Didn't she defeat Roman forces at Camulodunum and Londinium?

Oh snap.

Also, weren't the Carthaginians originally a Phoenician colony? And weren't the Phoenicians a Semitic people? Classical history has not been a tremendous area of focus for me, so I have only a passing knowledge of things.

vnderrated post

t. barbarian

Yes, but this was hundreds of years before Jesus was born.

*Blocks the Pyrenees*
Pssh, don't forget me, kid.

I believe it´s because, they fought for their ancestral nation´s against an empire(roman) bigger and stronger. Specially the case´s of Vercingetorix in France and Viriatus in Portugal. cause Spartacus was a different issue.

Why are the Trojans romanticized?

Same principle as having your defeated enemies march in full regalia in your triumph- increasing their glory increases yours transitively.

They lost.
Seriously. Every fucking losing side in antiquity gets a pity party against those ebil Romans or Greeks (Myceneans but whatever).

filthy barbarian

>Boudicca
>Anglo
Anglos didn't exist yet you fucking moron
Boudicca was a celt

>frogposter
>anglo meme despite the fact that Boudicca was celtic
/pol/ack either leave or shut the fuck up

She destroyed 3 important Roman cities and routed part of a legion. So yes she technically did. I've been to Verralanium myself, shits nice

Boudicca was an Iceni and a Briton, it's highly doubtful she would have identified as a Celt, that was a tribal federation in Gallia that seems to have had zero presence in Britain.

Because the popular history of it, the Iliad, depicts them in a favorable light. Hector is a great guy and Priam is pitiable. The gods also had some favor for them.

It's because it's a Late Roman Centurion helmet, it's got the metal crest and everything.

I suspect someone may have told the prop department "ayo we need a 3rd century Roman helmet" and they assumed 3rd century AD rather than BC