Lie about swords.

[westwall]

Although the Romans won from time to time, no one considered them to be real warriors. They were just slaves, trained to walk in formation under shields. They were able to defeat only the West of Europe. In the area of Sormatia they were powerless against cavalry. Rome did not expand eastward. Expeditions in Asia also collapsed.

They were citizens, and if not citizens, their military service made them so. They were never slaves.

In fact, the cavalry element was made up of the wealthy land owners.

Ummm, what about the Eastern Roman Empire?

You don't know a damned thing about Rime.

 

[westwall]

No, there was a long war, as a result of which the Roman army was completely destroyed

Then how is it that the Parthians became a client State of Rome?

 

[rupol2000]

But their engineering

There were no engineers there, it was a copy of the Macedonian phalanx, they invented only the turtle, and changed the order of the battle struct.
The army consisted of cowardly slaves, and the whole army was held in fear of punishment.

There was good proffesional army only in period of Kings

 

[westwall]

There were no engineers there, it was a copy of the Macedonian phalanx, they invented only the turtle, and changed the order of the battle struct.
The army consisted of cowardly slaves, and the whole army was held in fear of punishment.

There was good proffesional army only in period of Kings

Good gosh you are ignorant. Read a book on ROMAN ENGINEERING.

 

[rupol2000]

They were citizens, and if not citizens, their military service made them so. They were never slaves.

It's almost the same, it was the colonuses, half-slaves who served for the right to land

 

[rupol2000]

n fact, the cavalry element was made up of the wealthy land owners.

There was no cavalry. They hired federates for this

 

[rupol2000]

Read a book on ROMAN ENGINEERING.

Surely there is a lie. Obviously, this was the most primitive army at the time. Ordinary slave army of the empire.

 

[westwall]

There was no cavalry. They hired federates for this

Before Marius modernised the army the cavalry (Equites) were all the landed nobility.

This is well known history dude.

You should read some

 

[westwall]

Surely there is a lie. Obviously, this was the most primitive army at the time. Ordinary slave army of the empire.

You are an idiot.

 

[rupol2000]

Then how is it that the Parthians became a client State of Rome?

After the Parthians destroyed the Roman army, they entered the Colosseum, fired at the nobility and issued coins "Parthian victory" in Rome. In fact, after that there was no separate Rome as an independent state. It was called Rome only for propaganda purposes, it was an appendage of Parthia at the time

 

[rupol2000]

Before Marius modernised the army the cavalry (Equites) were all the landed nobility.

Well, at that time there could be cavalry from the patrician Celtic nobility of the period of the kings. This is almost the oldest history of Rome, which comes from the Latins. But this is not what is usually meant by the Roman combat infantry of legionnaires.

 

[rupol2000]

Ummm, what about the Eastern Roman Empire?

Little is known about its history. Apparently when it was under the Bulgars and Huns there was cavalry

 

[rupol2000]

"Look! Already before your onslaught, the enemies were struck with horror: they are looking for heights, occupying mounds and in late repentance pray for fortifications in the steppe. You know how light the weapons of the Romans are: not only the first wound is painful for them, but the dust itself, when they go in battle formation and close their formation under the turtle's shields. But you fight, inspired by perseverance, as you are accustomed to, while neglecting their formation, attack the Alans..."

Attila

 

[westwall]

Well, at that time there could be cavalry from the patrician Celtic nobility of the period of the kings. This is almost the oldest history of Rome, which comes from the Latins. But this is not what is usually meant by the Roman combat infantry of legionnaires.

Ummm, the Romans fought the Celts.

 

[westwall]

Little is known about its history. Apparently when it was under the Bulgars and Huns there was cavalry

What the fuck are you blabbering about. The history of the Eastern Roman Empire is well known, as is the further history as the Byzantine Empire.

 

[rupol2000]

Ummm, the Romans fought the Celts.

Initially, ancient Rome was built by the Latins and Italics, they were the Celtic tribes. This was the time of the Kings. Nobody knows who the "Romans" are, but most likely they were traders from the Balkans, like the Macedonians or Illyrians, who eventually seized power there.

 

[rupol2000]

What the fuck are you blabbering about. The history of the Eastern Roman Empire is well known, as is the further history as the Byzantine Empire.

Little is known that the Bulgars sat on the thrones there and Byzantium paid taxes to the Hun state. In fact, there was no "Byzantium" in the sense of Rome.

 

[rupol2000]

In the days of the kings, the nobility was undoubtedly a cavalry. Aryan chariots are depicted on their coins. It is a legacy of La Tene culture

 

[rupol2000]

The last king was Tarquinius the Proud

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I'm absolutely sure the sword was a thrusting weapon. It is not the prototype of the saber, but is the prototype of the epee and foil. Absolutely all types of weapons and tools for cutting and chopping have a curved blade and do not have a chute.
There have never been cuttings with swords as it shows in films

Most likely the prototype of the saber was the khopesh

I think that this lie is connected with the fact that they are trying to replace the Hun conquests of Europe with the fictitious conquests of the "Vikings"

Fictitious conquests of the Vikings? You have been reading alternative history novels thinking they were actual texts?