|
Install Gentoo posted:Did the Romans have any of those hilltop-to-hilltop signaling flag systems, or were those not developed until the middle ages? Hadrian's Wall was evidently controlled by a signal fire/flag system that may have used pre-set messages and synchronized time intervals for interpretation. It was complex enough that we can reasonably assume lightspeed communications were in use in other places. One of the first major structures built in England post-Roman conquest was a lighthouse at Dover, and its signal partner would have been the Roman lighthouse at Boulogne right across the Channel.
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 16:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:42 |
|
|
That visual signal system must have worked splendidly in Britannia, for the five minutes per day when it wasn't raining or foggy 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 18:10
|
|
|
How much information do we have about the Iberian peninsula in antiquity before the Romans arrived on the scene? I know the Carthaginians had a presence in the South and southeast of the Peninsula, and I've heard about a (pre-Indo European?) society called Tartessos, but aside from that it seems to be a confusing mix of "Possibly mostly Celtic" and of course the Basques up at the Bay of Biscay. Do we have information on the non-Roman and non-Carthaginian societies in Iberia? Do we know how Celtic societies in the Iberian peninsula differed in any way from Celts in Gaul? For that matter, do we know of different regional practices among the Celts - from oral traditions if nothing else? Since they extended from Bohemia to Britain and northern Italy to Portugal, they can't possibly have been one monolithic cultural entity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 18:26
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:The east was also rich as poo poo, which gave them an unbalanced amount of influence. Western areas were by no means uncivilized, despite what the Romans wrote--people like the Gauls were advanced civilizations. But fact is, they didn't compare to the fabulous wealth and development of the east. They were steamrolled and became Roman, while the east retained much of its original influence, power, and culture while still adopting the Roman system and becoming Romans. Just, Hellenized Romans. Or Romanized Hellenes, depending on your point of view. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd read in multiple places that the West wasn't that much poorer than the East - something like a 10% difference, ultimately, if the figures that I was shown were correct. Do your figures refute that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 03:10
|
|
|
Wasn't it down to the fact that the Gauls/Germans etc were so fractured in terms of competing tribes that they were never able to present a truly unified front against the Romans (and when they did they tended to dominate), and that was how they were conquered even though their civilization/technology was in many ways comparable to the Romans? Edit: For that matter what did the Romans do better than everybody else? Their city-planning (apart from Rome itself) was supposed to be pretty amazing, they had those fantastic roads, the aqueducts etc. What was unique/superior about Roman technology/civilization other than their military fighting techniques. Jerusalem fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Jun 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 03:17
|
|
|
Population wise it might not have been a huge difference, but the western half of the empire was much more rural, whereas the east had more urban centers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 03:24
|
|
|
Beamed posted:Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd read in multiple places that the West wasn't that much poorer than the East - something like a 10% difference, ultimately, if the figures that I was shown were correct. Do your figures refute that? That's interesting - what books have said that? I'd love to see their figures on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 03:46
|
|
|
Beamed posted:Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd read in multiple places that the West wasn't that much poorer than the East - something like a 10% difference, ultimately, if the figures that I was shown were correct. Do your figures refute that? Indeed, I'm certainly of the impression that the West wasn't poor. But it's a different kind of wealth; much more agrarian society and with vast mineral wealth, while the East was more urbanized and the source of most manufactured goods. Not all of course, since I know North Africa was renowned for it's pottery, and much of the armament and accoutrement was still manufactured in the West because there was political expedient for doing so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 04:12
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
How did the trappings of the Emperor change as the Eastern empire aged? It seems like the later Emperors sported a vaguely-papal tiara, but where'd that come from? Was it a hellenization of a Frankish practice? What about purple? Did emperors still wear purple?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 05:38
|
|
|
AdjectiveNoun posted:That's interesting - what books have said that? I'd love to see their figures on the subject. This may help you.  e: open in a new tab to zoom. ee: Also, the east was more susceptible to disease and thus loss of population / tax-payers. Iseeyouseemeseeyou fucked around with this message at 06:31 on Jun 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 06:23
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Edit: For that matter what did the Romans do better than everybody else? Their city-planning (apart from Rome itself) was supposed to be pretty amazing, they had those fantastic roads, the aqueducts etc. What was unique/superior about Roman technology/civilization other than their military fighting techniques. Wasn't it basically just their military? I always got the impression that it was basically their tactical innovations in the military, and the strategic advantage provided by their infrastructure, specifically roads, that gave them the ability to aggressively expand. That and their willingness to adopt the practices/technology of other cultures when they came across good stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 06:30
|
|
|
I still don't get why ancient empires just didn't keep expanding. Why not just wipe out the pesky border tribes for good or subjugate them? Why not start a massive military buildup and annihilate the Persians, then use their territory as a staging ground for future conquests? Maybe this is because I keep thinking of this in terms of some Civilization game.  On a more serious note, what was in ancient eastern Europe that prevented the Romans from expanding in that direction?  Why didn't they just go, well, north? Was ancient Russia just too cold for them? What did they even call those regions? Who even lived there?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 06:44
|
|
|
They didn't go there because there was no reason to. There wasn't really much wealth to be had, and there was little state support since the state was already hard enough to govern. Civilization never really imparts that part on you. Go play Crusader Kings and you'll get it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 07:22
|
|
|
Usually people only invade/colonize/whatever if there's something to be gained out of it. Ready-to-exploit farmland is always nice to have, as are slaves and minerals. None of those? Well then no soldier will die trying to take it. Russia is weird because you CAN farm there, I guess, but there's just not much reason to since it's so cold and lovely and difficult. I imagine it'll become a more popular place once the world's temperature raises a few degrees but as of right now it's just lovely land.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 08:09
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:How did the trappings of the Emperor change as the Eastern empire aged? It seems like the later Emperors sported a vaguely-papal tiara, but where'd that come from? Was it a hellenization of a Frankish practice? What about purple? Did emperors still wear purple? They wore purple right up until the end I think, but I could be wrong. The crowns started with Diocletian, as a part of his efforts to rebrand the Imperial office as something grandiose and divinely appointed. Previous emperors had followed Augustus' "first citizen" propaganda, and a crown would have been antithetical to any attempt to pretend that the Republic was still up and running. LimburgLimbo posted:Wasn't it basically just their military? I always got the impression that it was basically their tactical innovations in the military, and the strategic advantage provided by their infrastructure, specifically roads, that gave them the ability to aggressively expand. That and their willingness to adopt the practices/technology of other cultures when they came across good stuff. In addition to all this, when dealing with the Germanic barbarians, at least some of their success came from their ability to keep the various tribes independent of each other and fighting amongst themselves. There was a lot of diplomacy going on, with the Romans supporting this tribe this year and that tribe the next, and so on. When the tribes started to band together into large confederations (the Franks, the Goths, etc.) things start to get progressively harder for the Romans. karl fungus posted:I still don't get why ancient empires just didn't keep expanding. Why not just wipe out the pesky border tribes for good or subjugate them? Why not start a massive military buildup and annihilate the Persians, then use their territory as a staging ground for future conquests? Maybe this is because I keep thinking of this in terms of some Civilization game. Various barbarian tribes lived there (you can see some of their names on the map there), and the Romans made no major effort to expand because the Rhine and Danube rivers made for excellent and at least partially defensible borders. The Romans did control Dacia for a while, which is north of the Danube, but it became increasingly difficult to defend and they cut their losses there during the third century when they no longer had the spare resources to hold it. The main issue with conquest is that it's much harder than most video games will make it seem. Why not wipe out or subjugate the border tribes? Because that's hard and expensive, and there are just more border tribes right behind them anyway. You ask why they didn't annihilate Persia - well, because Persia was an advanced empire of equal strength, and when Emperor Whoever loses most of his army fighting for control of the Fertile Crescent, what was he going to do when some barbarians inevitably come streaming over the border in Moesia, or if the governor of Carthage is suddenly proclaimed emperor by his troops? Although to be fair Trajan did conquer the Fertile Crescent, but then Hadrian abandoned it because he thought it would be impossible to defend.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 12:09
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:Why didn't they just go, well, north? Was ancient Russia just too cold for them? What did they even call those regions? Who even lived there? The forefathers of the Huns and Mongols lived in what is modern Poland, Ukraine, and Russia. They were called the Scythians, though that is a catchall for what may have been hundreds of tribes. You can see the Alani on that map, they would go on to cause no end of trouble for the Romans, and would finally end up living in Gaul. Nearly everyone from the Steppes was some kind of horse culture that specialized in horse archers. Attacking horse cultures on their home turf is a very, very bad idea. This pretty much ruled out anything north of the Bosporan Kingdom in the Crimea as good for expansion from the "civilized" cultures of the day. Germany was a separate issue. The Romans did try to conquer it, and were in the process of doing so when the battle of Teutorburg Forest happened and 3 whole legions got wiped out. Augustus wanted the border of the Empire to be at the Elbe river instead of the Rhine, since it comes much closer to the Danube and offered a better defensive border. Afterwards Germanicus stomped through the area that is now central Germany and burned a pillaged a whole lot to teach them a lesson, but no more plans for settlement were ever made. We have talked about it a few times in the thread, since for me it is an interesting jumping off point for "what if" scenarios. In general though, The Romans conquered everything it was profitable for them to conquer. The only area denied to them was Persia, but there was argument as to whether or not that would be overextension even back then. Hadrian gave back lands Trajan conquered for that very reason. Everything to the north was wild and untamed compared to the Mediterranean. It would have taken a massive amount of investment to develop those lands, and for little profit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 13:55
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:On a more serious note, what was in ancient eastern Europe that prevented the Romans from expanding in that direction? Nothing.  There's nothing there, no reason to expand. The problem is as you said, you're thinking like it's a strategy game. Reality doesn't work that way. For the most part, civilizations expand and conquer areas that are valuable, and then stop. Ones that keep expanding into territory that isn't worth the trouble end up with serious problems because of it, and the leaders who do that end up with bad reputations for squandering the military on pointless campaigns and weakening the empire. So sure, you could expend a lot of time and effort fighting the steppe people there, but what are you gaining by it? Nothing. The Roman military had the capability to theoretically roll up every single opponent in Europe and Asia except the Chinese, but it was just beyond them. They couldn't hold onto that, they couldn't administer it, and a lot of it was worthless. Today we have declared borders and stuff, so you end up with situations like Russia or Canada where half the country is wasteland that will never really be developed, but they claimed it so it's theirs. There's very little completely inhospitable land inside the Roman empire, especially if you don't count the mountains.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 14:01
|
|
|
Barto posted:I've always been interested in this- didn't the Romans adopt some of their armor from Gauls and Iberians?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 14:02
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:The forefathers of the Huns and Mongols lived in what is modern Poland, Ukraine, and Russia. They were called the Scythians, though that is a catchall for what may have been hundreds of tribes. Eh? No, the Scythians are very different from the Huns and Mongols (with the caveat that all nomadic confederations tend to include members from several ethno-linguistic groups) - the Huns (assuming the thesis that the Huns are at least related to the Xiongnu and not just another steppe-peoples that took on that name for its prestige) and Mongols' forefathers lived in what is now Mongolia, Xinjiang and Manchuria, and were Altaic, not Indo-Iranian like the Scythians. I agree 100% with the rest of your post though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 14:06
|
|
|
I was speaking in generalities, I meant more that they were the predecessors of that "style" of people. I am undereducated on the makeup of the steppe peoples though. I thought they were considered to be mostly similar culturally if not ethnically due to their huge areas of overlapping territory and occasional meetings and wars with the neighboring tribes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 14:28
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:I was speaking in generalities, I meant more that they were the predecessors of that "style" of people. I am undereducated on the makeup of the steppe peoples though. I thought they were considered to be mostly similar culturally if not ethnically due to their huge areas of overlapping territory and occasional meetings and wars with the neighboring tribes. Oh, my mistake. Sorry about being pedantic - you're right that they were the predecessors of that style of nomadic cavalry archer raiders, though IIRC the Scythians and Sarmatians lacked the unity and organization of later steppe confederations like the Huns or Hepthalites - an individual Scythian tribe might raid Rome or Persia and be a real nuisance, but that's nothing compared to dozens or scores of tribes united.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 14:34
|
|
|
Keep in mind if I was wrong about something please elaborate, this thread owns for learning about all those other areas of history too. I honestly did consider the Scythians and Mongols to be more culturally related then say Mongols and Chinese or Scythians and Greeks. Is that wrong? When Ghengis was declared the "Universal Ruler of All Those Who Dwell in Felt Tents" I thought they deliberately intended that to mean all the way to the Russian steppes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 14:45
|
|
|
The Scythians and Mongols had no direct relationship, but that type of steppe civilization had a lot in common across the entire region. I would say yes, Scythians and Mongols had a lot more in common than Mongols and Chinese or Scythians and Greeks. It's like how all the Middle Eastern civilizations were distinct cultures that shared a lot in common, or Mediterranean cultures, or whatever. The steppe is a very specific environment that requires people to live a certain way to survive, which encouraged civilizations and cultures to develop in similar ways. You see this in desert dwelling civilizations and whatnot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 14:51
|
|
|
Was it limited to just similar responses to a shared environment, or were there religious and other such cultural links as well?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 14:57
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Keep in mind if I was wrong about something please elaborate, this thread owns for learning about all those other areas of history too. I honestly did consider the Scythians and Mongols to be more culturally related then say Mongols and Chinese or Scythians and Greeks. Is that wrong? When Ghengis was declared the "Universal Ruler of All Those Who Dwell in Felt Tents" I thought they deliberately intended that to mean all the way to the Russian steppes. It's tricky because the Scythians aren't really an actual group, it's just what the Greeks called them. What they called Scythia included groups like the Sarmatians near the Danube and north of the Black Sea, Iranian tribes like the Sogdians and Bactrians which were in modern day Uzbekistan/Afghanistan/other 'stans', Indo-Scythian tribes near India, and Turkic tribes which puts you closer to western China and Mongolia. They had similarities because they were steppe civilizations and horse-oriented, but they were their own distinct cultures. The same would be true of comparing a Scythian to a Mongol, although they certainly had much more in common with Mongols than Greeks or Chinese.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 14:58
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Was it limited to just similar responses to a shared environment, or were there religious and other such cultural links as well? Kinda both. Culture/religion tends to rise out of the environment and a people's adaptation to it, so from what I know there are some similarities in those respects. I don't think there was any real contact, but there might've been. People got around in the ancient world. They didn't write anything, so it's hard to say.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 15:00
|
|
|
canuckanese posted:It's tricky because the Scythians aren't really an actual group, it's just what the Greeks called them. What they called Scythia included groups like the Sarmatians near the Danube and north of the Black Sea, Iranian tribes like the Sogdians and Bactrians which were in modern day Uzbekistan/Afghanistan/other 'stans', Indo-Scythian tribes near India, and Turkic tribes which puts you closer to western China and Mongolia. They had similarities because they were steppe civilizations and horse-oriented, but they were their own distinct cultures. The same would be true of comparing a Scythian to a Mongol, although they certainly had much more in common with Mongols than Greeks or Chinese. And "Mongol" often gets used for all the various small tribes that the Mongols swallowed up during Ghengis' expansion, too. There were culturally and in lifestyle extremely similar to the Mongols. And when the Mongols invaded Russia, they got a lot of the groups there to go along with them because they shared a lot more with the Mongols culturally.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 15:01
|
|
|
See now I'm fascinated by this and will be trying to look this poo poo up while I should be doing homework. Thanks a lot jerks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 15:24
|
|
|
Sweet this is a subject I've been interested in hearing more about too, it's really fascinating. Steppe people have been demonized pretty universally for so much of our history so there is a considerable lack of accurate information.Grand Fromage posted:Kinda both. Culture/religion tends to rise out of the environment and a people's adaptation to it, so from what I know there are some similarities in those respects. I don't think there was any real contact, but there might've been. People got around in the ancient world. They didn't write anything, so it's hard to say. Also I thought the Hun/Xiongnu relation wasn't taken seriously anymore? Koramei fucked around with this message at 15:53 on Jun 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 15:51
|
|
|
In addition to the reasons given already, it also helps if what you are trying to conquer is close to your own water-ways (like around the 'Med). Trying to push deep into northern Europe or Asia/Persia just isn't happening with the limits in communication, because there would be no way to keep it all together effectively. It takes a long while to build roads everywhere, especially when Europe looks less like today and more like Siberia (more trees). I mean, sure you could maybe possibly pull an Alexander or Mongol thing, but those empires didn't tend towards keeping together for 1000 years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 16:08
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:The Scythians and Mongols had no direct relationship, but that type of steppe civilization had a lot in common across the entire region. I would say yes, Scythians and Mongols had a lot more in common than Mongols and Chinese or Scythians and Greeks. It's like how all the Middle Eastern civilizations were distinct cultures that shared a lot in common, or Mediterranean cultures, or whatever. The steppe is a very specific environment that requires people to live a certain way to survive, which encouraged civilizations and cultures to develop in similar ways. You see this in desert dwelling civilizations and whatnot. What we generally consider Scythians is very different from Mongols. Honestly they more then likely had cites and towns and markers it's just when we think steep people we think Mongolians but Scythians where more then likely more like the later Avars or Hungarians in there civilization. The fact we have little or no written language from them or archaeology does hurt any study into them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 16:13
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:I still don't get why ancient empires just didn't keep expanding. Why not just wipe out the pesky border tribes for good or subjugate them? Why not start a massive military buildup and annihilate the Persians, then use their territory as a staging ground for future conquests? Maybe this is because I keep thinking of this in terms of some Civilization game. There actually was an ancient empire that kept expanding. All three of the Assyrian Empires essentially expanded until they imploded due to overextension. The last one imploded badly enough all of their cities were reduced to rubble and for a very long time the Assyrians were simply known as "those evil people who worshipped demons or something, I dunno". So you could say later empires just learned from their example.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
The Assyrians kept expanding because there were still valuable cities to conquer. A lot of aggressive civs end up in the position where they need to keep expanding or they stagnate and die. With out new lands to plunder, they can't afford to keep operating. Even the Romans ran into that issue... Oh, we have to pay the army out of taxes? Screw that, they'd say. And then wonder why the army kept mutinying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 17:27
|
|
|
WHAT A GOOD DOG posted:Usually people only invade/colonize/whatever if there's something to be gained out of it. Ready-to-exploit farmland is always nice to have, as are slaves and minerals. None of those? Well then no soldier will die trying to take it. Southern Russia and the Ukraine is incredibly fertile.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
AdjectiveNoun posted:Eh? No, the Scythians are very different from the Huns and Mongols (with the caveat that all nomadic confederations tend to include members from several ethno-linguistic groups) - the Huns (assuming the thesis that the Huns are at least related to the Xiongnu and not just another steppe-peoples that took on that name for its prestige) and Mongols' forefathers lived in what is now Mongolia, Xinjiang and Manchuria, and were Altaic, not Indo-Iranian like the Scythians. Bah, that Huns are the Xiongnu theory is probably all bunk anyway. It's mostly based on a coincidence of how the two words sound, without any actual evidence that they would be the same people. Even if they were, there's what, three or four hundred years between the Xiongnu peak and the Huns appearing in Europe. Who knows what happened in those years? We've seen complete shifts in ethnicity in less time. sullat posted:The Assyrians kept expanding because there were still valuable cities to conquer. A lot of aggressive civs end up in the position where they need to keep expanding or they stagnate and die. With out new lands to plunder, they can't afford to keep operating. Even the Romans ran into that issue... Oh, we have to pay the army out of taxes? Screw that, they'd say. And then wonder why the army kept mutinying. That's also not a real thing. Lack of expansion is not what spelled the downfall of Rome. And the army had always been paid for out of taxation anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 23:10
|
|
|
quote:You ask why they didn't annihilate Persia - well, because Persia was an advanced empire of equal strength, and when Emperor Whoever loses most of his army fighting for control of the Fertile Crescent, what was he going to do when some barbarians inevitably come streaming over the border in Moesia, or if the governor of Carthage is suddenly proclaimed emperor by his troops? Although to be fair Trajan did conquer the Fertile Crescent, but then Hadrian abandoned it because he thought it would be impossible to defend. Hadrian deciding to ditch the Persian territories was probably for the best. Look at a map and consider those supply lines they'd have - miles and miles of bullshit desert full of rear end in a top hat nomads that think it's just a hoot to offer to "guide" Roman armies, then nip off in the night and alert the nearest Parthian army. And when you've finally schlepped through that mess, you're only 2/3rds of the way there and within striking distance of pissed off guys who'd just love to break a lance off in your face. Once the Parthians worked through the latest dynastic struggle, it would have been a tremendous pain for Rome to actually hold onto Charax. poo poo, Dacia was reasonably close to the Roman core, and even that was a bridge too far. paranoid randroid fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Jun 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 23:25
|
|
|
Was there any real reason why the romans didn't expand to the Carpathians and use that as a border? IIRC even when they did own northern Dacia, it didn't extend all the way to the Carpathians.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
Seoinin posted:Hadrian deciding to ditch the Persian territories was probably for the best. Look at a map and consider those supply lines they'd have - miles and miles of bullshit desert full of rear end in a top hat nomads that think it's just a hoot to offer to "guide" Roman armies, then nip off in the night and alert the nearest Parthian army. Once the Parthians worked through the latest dynastic struggle, it would have been a tremendous pain for Rome to actually hold onto Charax. It honestly doesn't seem that bad? Whilst yes, it's the absolute feasible limit for Roman expansion to the East, dangerous close to overextension, there were plenty of peoples in the area with good reason to support Rome over Parthia - the Armenians and Assyrians, for instance, and going from Antioch to the Euphrates and river transports wouldn't make the supply lines too huge - not to mention Mesopotamia, being one of the most fertile regions in the area would provide for a good chunk of the supplies necessary to defend it. And quite honestly, by that point, the Parthians were no real threat to Rome - they'd just lost most of the richest parts of their Empire, they didn't enjoy significant support within Persia, and Rome was quite consistently able to beat them in open battle. Whilst this is obvious with the benefit of hindsight, much like it appears strange to a modern observer that Rome never took Germany, knowing what we know now, I think Rome could have held those territories up until the inevitable Third Century Crisis gave an opening for Persia to snatch them back.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
I dunno, maybe they could have held territory on the Gulf. It's not the least believable alt-history I've heard. The Parthians were about to collapse, so the Romans could have made a decent showing up until the Sassanids came along at least. Once they show up, though, the Legions are suddenly up against a centralized and considerably more powerful nation with an actual professional military core. I wouldn't put long odds on the province staying Roman for long into the 3rd century, especially given as you pointed out the Crisis of the 3rd Century would completely have wrecked the region.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 23:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:42 |
|
|
On that topic, what is the least believable Roman alt-history you've heard? Because oh boy there are a ton.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 23:51
|
|