>The whole north-western part of rome was barren wastelands defended by small, primitive barbarians that nobody even bothered to conquer before rome did >Was only able to conquer the macedonian empire by supporting greek city states against them >"Conquered" Egypt literally by fucking the corrupt whore Cleopatra who gifted Egypt to the Romans. >Barely was able to conquer the much smaller carthage despite using the same shady tactics as in Macedonia, "divide and conquer" by supporting the smaller powers in north africa against carthage. >Extremely corrupt, decadent government now rules over whole mediterranean building almost nothing except for very few aqueaducts and colesseums that are extremely overrated, because most ressources went into decadent luxurious life style of the rich and powerful and their political power games >all uprising against the corrupt roman rule are small and insignificant and yet rome has troubles shutting them down like in the jewish wars >As soon as persia reemerged as a major empire almost all ressources need to be relocated to the eastern front because the corrupt, low-morale roman troops keep getting btfo by numerically inferior persians >still more roman troops at the western front, than barbarians, but they keep getting btfo, and eventually the borders fall, barbarians migrate in and do as they please >as soon as a major opponent arose (persian sassanide) rome stops existing within 2 centuries
So Veeky Forums, why exactly is this giant, uber-corrupt piece of turd so admired?
You could make the same arguments about literally any empire.
Nathaniel Adams
how bout you shut the fuck up
Lucas Morris
No.
Tyler Butler
This a million times over. People don't seem to be able to think rationally these days
Charles Sullivan
>max gains with min effort makes them "overrated"
are you a moron? oh wait: yes.
Adam Foster
Pathetic how little they invented in all those centuries
Benjamin Stewart
>>The whole north-western part of rome was barren wastelands defended by small, primitive barbarians that nobody even bothered to conquer before rome did
T.Retard, Gaul and Britain were rich as fuck full of huge colonies, and Gaul had incredibly good climate and soil, while Britain was incredibly rich in metals like iron, copper or tin
You are officially retarded
William Miller
>completely revolutionize warfare >btfo everyone around them >from a single city to conquering basically all of europe (the rest was just forest and naked germans)
Andrew Moore
>Carthage: Rise to the top due to efficient government and high-moraled troops >Rome: Rise to the top through corrupting your opponent and throwing masses of low-moraled soldiers at them
Jacob Cox
>Carthage >A literal oligarchy ruled by a small group of powerful families were open bribery was accepted >Forum even more of a sham than the Roman Senate
>Not corrupt >Efficient pls go brainlet this is a history board
David Scott
You should read into the roman military history. They lost pretty much every battle against Epirus and only eventually won the war by having more troops to spare. They didn't even fight the Macedonians because they corrupted greek city states into revolting against Macedonia instead. They also would have gotten btfo by Carthage had they now used other north african powers like the Numidians against them.
Everything about rome just reeks of corruption. How can a morale person admire such an empire?
Camden Foster
>Carthage >rise to the top
So barely controlling a semi desertic coastline, an island and a half and the South coasts of Iberia is rising to the top?
Lucas Torres
Carthage had a population of 400.000 inhabitants, which made it the biggest city of its time until it was completely destroyed by >romans.
Angel Foster
>Carthage had a population of 400.000 inhabitants
Source?
I'm pretty sure Rome was at least as big and Babylon was bigger
Daniel Scott
Rome and carthage, those words sound so powerfull together
Angel Young
I know that feel bro.
>As long as the Romans needed proof of their greatness, the legend of Carthage would never die
Owen Williams
>carthage >efficent goverment LMAO
Brody Carter
Idk, how could a moral person defend human sacrifice practitioners like the Carthaginians? Or what does """morals""" have to do with anything to begin with Really makes me think
Joshua Smith
>Literally believing the bullshit propagande spread around by roman mouthbreathers.
Jordan Williams
Are you retarded?
Most of the tophets contained stillborn babies, there is barely any evidence they practiced human sacrifice, and if they did it was very rare, not to mention tophets were present only in a few Carthaginian cities (like 10 ) out of many.
Romans had gladiators games in almost every city of the empire, where men faced huge beasts or were even forced to fight to death against themselves. and we have direct evidence of that, don't pretend they were any better.
Evan Martin
Weak excuses
Colton Gray
You don't know shit about Carthage, let an expert tell you how it is
Grayson Baker
Leave him, he is posessed by the roman devil. He probably also believes christian and jews sacrificed children and drank their blood.
Luke Phillips
Reminder: Carthaginians were black
Luke Rodriguez
ITT: Morons attempt to apply modern values to ancient empires.
Jonathan Green
Mass replying should be bannable.
Lincoln Green
(You)
Nicholas Lewis
This tbqh, it was the same with Persia/Parthia, Carthage, Rashidun/Umayyad/Abassid Caliphates, Mongol Empire, Roman/Byzantines, etc...
Jayden Watson
Not really though, Romans literally lost almost all their battles and eventually only conquered lands by corrupting their governments until they eventually folded. The only part in europe that was truly conquered was the barbaric north-west, and they even still struggled there against naked Celts and Germans.
All the empires you named grew because they were stronger than others, not more corrupt.
Logan Butler
Factually inaccurate
Andrew Hall
>Carthage >Good troops "Save me Xanthippus"
Ethan Robinson
Reminder that this shitpost was written in Latin characters
Anthony Davis
Rome is THE Empire.
Levi Young
>high moralled troops >efficient government
Is that what we're calling mercenaries and sleazy money hungry oligarchs now?
Luis Foster
>pydna,cynoscephalae and magnesia was all roman losses
top wew
Jaxon Nguyen
If so, only so, for its descendents (Britain, France, etc.), in their great magnitude, thought it fit to exaggerate her legacy.
As for your arguments, I'll try to generalise and then proceed to argue against them:
>Decadent
I fail to understand the importance of this. As it is, you can't both spin the narrative that it only won warfare by flooding its rivals with disposable canon fodder, while also arguing that it was degenerate, as degeneracy => low birthrate.
>Corrupt
Compared to the democracies of today, yes. Compared to the other literal monarchies of its time? Certainly not.
>Only won land by 'divide and conquer' tactic
What about Gual? Wasn't Ceasar's final victory against the Gauls against a united front lead by Vercingetorix?
Indeed, from my understanding, Rome is famous for its military prowess, especially considering its invention of the legion.
Colton Hughes
If Carthage would have their own army instead of mercenaries then rome wouldnt have won
Michael Price
*cannon fodder
Thomas Wright
If only Carthage had AKs and tanks, Rome wouldn't have stood a chance!
Kayden Garcia
Let'see:
>Average Roman soldier:
Blonde indoeuropean 6 feet tall with muscular physiique
>Weapon of choice:
His weapon is a strong iberian blade, forged after millenia of European experience in forging swords, its the optimal blade of antiquity >Average Carthaginian soldier:
Brown berber-semite mix, 5 feet tall, pot belly due to beer and grain comsumption, skeleton like limbs
>favorite weapon::
a stupid curved banana-like small blade that can't even stab an old woman in a wheel chair
Matthew Scott
Grow up faggot. History is not about "ifs"
Evan Ward
It is Did you read about their wars?
Its obvious that rome had the advantage because they have their own soldiers instead of mercenaries
Ethan Brooks
They didn't have their own soldiers because no one wanted to fight for free for despotic retards like Carthanazis AKA ISIS 2.0 destroyers of statues
Isaiah Rodriguez
Winners do tend to have some advantage, that's how they win.
Camden Jenkins
So what's your point, ya dink? They didn't, end of story And they lost, goes to show they were shit If they weren't shit they would've had their own soldiers
Juan Jenkins
>it is Now I know you are b8ing, or a complete retard
Ryan Sanders
WE
Gavin James
DUMB AS FUCK U M B
A S
F U C K
Nicholas Martin
If anything, the Romans would have been quite insulted by the assertion that Carthage somehow wasn't a serious threat, given that the Romans themselves tended to hype up Carthage as much as possible in order to make their final victory seem more impressive.
Robert Cruz
...
Jayden Torres
The very word and concept of "empire" comes from Rome. It is THE empire.
Dominic Stewart
Holy shit You mean to tell me That Rome won Because they had an advantage? And that without that advantage? They could have lost? Holy shit. Holy fucking shit. We're really breaking new ground here people Somebody call the news, I can already see the headlines. "Veeky Forums Historical Expert Discovers that Winners May Have Lost in Totally Different Conditions" Headline of the fucking century right there.
Stupid fucking namefag.
Jackson Peterson
No concrete inventions at all.... Well, concrete, I guess, was pretty concrete.
Andrew Cooper
>lost almost every battle until they won the war
>would have gottn btfo
Wait, are you wanting to start an Historical Fiction thread, where we make up alternate histories about what didn't happen, but might have made history different if it HAD happened? Might be fun, but if that is your intent your opening post was unclear.
Owen Rodriguez
The republican and Byzantine eras are the only two worth admiring.
Benjamin Johnson
big if true
Brayden Cox
Carthage got btfo by a board with a nail in one end. Pretty weak.
Julian Hughes
Concrete, sofisticated glass, true arche
Grayson Fisher
>as soon as a major opponent arose (persian sassanide) rome stops existing within 2 centuries >as soon >within 2 centuries kek, here's your (you)
Matthew Robinson
Rome is overrated because it is the only old empire most europeans ever had, theo thers are either early modern or medieval ones which are not compareable to glory of rome
take britain, their legacy is british empire, but before that it was just petty kingdoms so they look into Rome, the whol frankish medieval empire is an imitation of Rome, etc
greeks, persians, egyptians etc do not have this roman complex because they have many different empires in their history, for the average anglo/german barbarian rome was the first civilziation, for other it was one of the many.
Thats why west fetishes Rome, while east have a more chill attitude, even in the provinces where rome had a remarkable presence.
