Everyone in this thread is testing my ability to suffer fools. Most notably the OP and this "fettaischeesy" guy.
Principally I would like to point out that the historical Crassus made speeches extremely similar to ones that would later be made by G.W. Bush. The words put into Crassus's mouth in the film are ones very similar to those that came out of the mouth of the man Lucinius Crassus whilst he was alive. The similarities are striking, yes, but not propaganda. The fact that you saw the similarities says far more about you than the filmmakers.
Now, for the comparison of Rome to the United States, and "fettaischeesy"'s oddly jingoistic approach to an extinct civilization that he seems to feel a bizarre personal connection to. His reaction smacks of someone who feels he is secretly really a Roman, a romanticization (if you'll forgive the pun) of an expansive and cruel Empire of imposition, and a hatred for the United States bred exclusively in Suburbia.
"The Roman's were one of the greatest military powers in history. This is not only in numbers but in tactics. The Roman's invented the Testudo, one of the most original and brilliant ideas in military history. The Romans were a highly disciplined force.
The USA is a big power in numbers and nuclear might but there is not subtlty, nuance or fantastic strategy about the way they fight. They fly planes over places and bomb the hell out of them. That's hardly the most ingenious strategy to ever exist, whether it works or not. "
Firstly, it is important to note that subtle warfare does not make for effective warfare. When the atom bomb was dropped, it most certainly ended the Pacific War, without a full-scale invasion of the Japanese islands and a long and hard battle for control over Tokyo, which would do far more ecological damage and cost far more lives than the two nuclear bombs. War is not about grace or honor, it is about destroying your opponent's ability to continue fighting. Nothing more. The idea that there is a "noble" way to fight is what cost the Japanese the war in the Pacific, and almost cost the Allies the war in Europe.
But that does not change the falsehood of the above quoted statement. Elegance and subtlety are historically hallmarks of American combat. The British redcoats would attempt to fight Colonial Rebels in a traditional European style of meeting on a field, marching at one another in ranks, and fighting until the commander surrendered. The American separatists, however, adapted surprise and ambush tactics from the American Indians and made maximum utility of each man by striking from the shadows, and taking the redcoats unawares.
The Testudo is interesting, but far from being the epitome of military excellence. For those who are not Roman Combat Historians, the testudo (or "tortoise maneuver") is the formation of Roman soldiers with their shields raised above them and on all sides, so that they can move forward without exposing a single point to injury. But there are far more brilliant and original inventions that advanced the art of warfare. Here is my brief list.
* Arrows. Invented before history, it is an effective weapon to this day, used by every human civilization for hunting and killing. The versatility of this tool allows it to be used by bows and crossbows (manned and automated), and even remotely-detonated rockets such as in Chinese military applications. No other invention has so drastically changed the art of human combat. This is the first long-range weapon except perhaps...
* Slingshots. In various forms the simplicity and versatility of this weapon cannot be underestimated. Ammunition is constantly abundant, and by using different things - from rocks to nuts to even knuckle bones - one can control the distance and concussive effect of the projectile.
* The Phalanx. Fighting in columns provides a strong central pillar to penetrate enemy lines and minimize casualties. This method was invented by the Greeks and dominated European tactics until the Napoleanic Wars. Even the Tetsudo formation is a variant of this tactic.
* Sherman Tanks. Invented by Americans during the second World War, it was not the most durable or effective tank. But it was extremely inexpensive to make in comparison to their German counterparts. As a result, Sherman tanks outnumbered German tanks on a scale of five-to-one at times, and Panzers could not get off a single shot before being destroyed by Sherman fire. The smaller tanks also integrated infantry and armored units in a new way that made the capture of Nazi-occupied cities quick and effective. Another revolutionary concept presented in the Sherman was its variety of interchangeable parts. It could be reconfigured with speed and ease like Lego blocks to include a top-mounted machine gun (or not); a bulldozer plow (or not); a flamethrower (or not); and a wide variety of other attachments. This allowed generals to quickly surprise German troops with tanks equipped with tactical gear never seen before, or at least in a configuration never seen before.
"America is large but all they did to aquire their land was shoot down a load of natives. The first "Americans" were hypocritical Brits that didn't want to pay taxes (although they were high)."
I'm not sure what this author thinks the Romans did to acquire their land. Buy it? No, it didn't work that way.
The City of Rome was founded on the banks of the Tiber. But they weren't the first people there. When Rome declared itself a Kingdom, it immediately went to war with its neighbors: the Etruscans and the Sabines. They were killed, defeated, and the survivors integrated as the "plebians" of the Roman caste system - those with the least amount of money and political power. The Romans, according to their own lore, were descended from Trojans, so they seem very much to have simply invaded and begun to "shoot down a load of natives".
Of course, they didn't stop at western Italy. They attacked and killed the Greek colonies in southern Italy, including Sicily. Then they conquered and occupied Greece in spite of its native population. The Romans then continued on to "shoot down a load" of Carthaginian, Hispanian, Syrian, Asian, African, Germanian, Gallic, Visigothic, Gaelic, and Anglic "natives".
"The Romans had the colloseum and slaves and Christians that fought to the death. They never repented for having slaves"
False. Rome became a Christian nation after Constantine became Emperor and forcefully converted the entire Empire to the faith of Christ. The Christian faith radically changed slavery in Rome, and many Bishops in Imperial Rome called for the emancipation of all slaves, though at the time it was an economic impossibility. But the first of several Popes of the Roman Christian Empire to be a former slave himself was Pope Clement I, known at the time as Pontifex Clemens Romanus.
"The closest America has to this is "Proffesional Wrestling" which is no more than a fake-violent soap opera with less intelligence than an aforementioned loaf of bread. A similarity was that early Americans owned slaves however "The Land of the Free"'s first President owned slaves in a country that declared that "All Men are equal" - do black slaves not count as men or are they just ignored in this particular part of a shambles of a document?"
The lack of any kind of coherence in your argument is breathtaking. Yes, the realistic difference between performing gladiatorial games and professional wrestling is easy to understand. But the anthropological relevance is exactly the same.
Why are gladiatorial games and professional wrestling - and even "reality television" - exactly the same? First and foremost because they appeal to the human animal, not the human mind. It is peddling in human misery, displaying the most base elements of the human condition. Exposition of violence, even false violence, serves to allow "civilized" man the ability to vicariously experience his bestial nature while still letting him acknowledge his superior standing - he need not fight, only lounge and watch others fight. Of course we feminize this in "reality television" and instead of physical combat, it's the conflicts of sexual and social constructs, which should be private and personal, put on humiliating display for all to gawk at. How on Earth are Roman gladiatorial games different from let alone better than American television?
But first and foremost we must acknowledge the striking similarities between the ascension of the Roman Republic and the American Republic.
1) Both are nations founded by foreign invaders on land where the native population was raped, killed, and displaced
2) Both are nations that gained terrestrial dominance through ingenious tactical, strategic, and technological advancement.
3) Both are nations founded on the ideals of democracy and freedom while directly contradicting themselves in the continued use of slaves (Remember kids, just because you don't call them slaves doesn't mean they're not! The new American slave: BLUE COLLAR WORKERS)
4) Both are nations whose population is composed of dozens of cultural identities and ethnicities
5) Both are nations whose wealth disparity, and its pronounced ethnic factor, have caused tremendous social and political strife, including peaceful revolutions
6) Both are nations obsessed with the display of human misery
7) Both are nations who developed social welfare systems in spite of the ruling class's opposition to it (see: FDR's New Deal as well as Publius Clodius's grain dole)
8) Both are nations whose radical advancements in road-making revolutionized transit, mail delivery, and communication (Appian Way and American Highways)
9) Both are nations whose aggressive territorial expansion was halted by foreign wars, and who entered an age of haphazard diplomacy in the face of an international community of independent and powerful countries.
And many more.
"fetaischeesy" I must assume that you are in middle school or high school. Or, and I hope not, that you are over the age eighteen but are a middle school or high school dropout. Your opinions appear to be based on mere snippets of knowledge strung together by assumptions that lack the guidance of critical thinking skills. I would highly suggest receiving a proper education before attempting to defend the fictional honor of the Roman Empire.
reply
share