Spartan Trivia. I hope I didn't make too much grammatical errors because english isn't my first language yadayada... I hope you enjoyed this... Spartans also didn't fight in their underwear, they wore proper armour. Spartan Trivia I hope didn't make too much grammatical errors because english isn't my first language yadayada you enjoyed this Spartans also fight in their underwear they wore proper armour
Upload
Login or register
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (309)
[ 309 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
123 comments displayed.
#1 - maxl
Reply +78
(09/18/2013) [-]
The romans defeated them because they didnt have walls
#17 to #1 - waffie
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
Not to mention numbers
#239 to #1 - worried
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
i was thought that it was because of the V formation from the roman legions broke through the spartan walls of shields
#12 to #1 - balderdash
Reply +1
(09/19/2013) [-]
You do realize it was the romans tactics in combat that allowed them to beat the greeks, the phalanx formation held by the spartans wasnt as flexible and adjustable as the roman legions and it meant on the battle field they were out maneuvered and eventually lost
#2 to #1 - neverborn
Reply +387
(09/18/2013) [-]
The romans had cowardly things like seige machines, heavy armour and hygeine
#9 to #2 - gatorade
Reply +18
(09/19/2013) [-]
Woah woah woah....   
   
Do you even know what the Spartans were like? They had solid bronze armor! Is that not heavy armor, the Romans at that time when they took(more of annexed they never attacked the city itself) Sparta had Lorica Hamata or Lorica Squamata. Hamata was a chain mail like cuirass, the squamata was a bronze scale armor.    
   
Sparta was on a decline at the point AND Rome was on a rise, and even if there was war where the two armies faced off. Sparta usually had about 10,000 soldiers max in their armies at their peak. At this time they'd be about 100,000 Romans(even more Auxilia) against about 4-5,000 Spartans. This is how the Romans defeated Epirus, Rome was defeated  by Epirus at a significant battle(Against the King of Epirus, Pyrrhus) Epirus lost a lot of men but Rome could replenish so much faster. This would happen with Rome v. Sparta.
Woah woah woah....

Do you even know what the Spartans were like? They had solid bronze armor! Is that not heavy armor, the Romans at that time when they took(more of annexed they never attacked the city itself) Sparta had Lorica Hamata or Lorica Squamata. Hamata was a chain mail like cuirass, the squamata was a bronze scale armor.

Sparta was on a decline at the point AND Rome was on a rise, and even if there was war where the two armies faced off. Sparta usually had about 10,000 soldiers max in their armies at their peak. At this time they'd be about 100,000 Romans(even more Auxilia) against about 4-5,000 Spartans. This is how the Romans defeated Epirus, Rome was defeated by Epirus at a significant battle(Against the King of Epirus, Pyrrhus) Epirus lost a lot of men but Rome could replenish so much faster. This would happen with Rome v. Sparta.
#34 to #9 - wrocky
Reply +29
(09/19/2013) [-]
i stopped reading at Lorica Hamata or Lorica Squamata Hakuna Matata
#160 to #9 - foxxywithpaws
Reply +11
(09/19/2013) [-]
He means the Romans had Tiger tanks, trust me, I was there.
#267 to #160 - intexuz
Reply +1
(09/19/2013) [-]
He's right,i was the Tiger tank
#19 to #9 - thatguyinabox ONLINE
Reply +3
(09/19/2013) [-]
You sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.
#227 to #9 - pwnmissilereborn **User deleted account**
Reply +2
(09/19/2013) [-]
Not to mention that the cohort formation the roman legionaries used was superior to the greek hoplite phalanx. The phalanx was heavy and barely flexible and most movements took several maneuvers to accomplish without disrupting the formation, while the cohorts were flexible, organised and still heavily armed.

The romans would start by throwing their pila, killing some hoplites and making others' shields useless as the pilum bent it's tip when it hit so it was no longer possible to remove during battle. The front lines of the cohort would then engage the phalanx from the front and be slightly pushed back, taking minor casualties as their large scutum provided them a good defense. The cohort's reserves would then move to the sides of the phalanx to flank them and engage in close combat making the phalanx drop their pikes and draw swords. Once the pikes were gone, it was just a matter of time until the cohort defeated the phalanx as the legionaries' equipment and training were superior with swords.
#61 to #9 - neverborn
Reply +1
(09/19/2013) [-]
As easy as it would be to shrug this off under the clause of 'it's a joke, so whatever' I'll admit I didn't know spartans had progressed from just having a bronze breastplate.
I did know they were outnumbered though.

Anyhoo, thanks for the info,
#174 to #2 - viscerys
Reply +6
(09/19/2013) [-]
Well, there were no walls. The siege machines were a bit excessive.
#175 to #174 - neverborn
Reply +3
(09/19/2013) [-]
Romans used formations that made use of trebuchet (or some other form of catapult) and probably ballisa to thin the enemy out before they charged into combat.
the versatility of the roman legions was a huge factor in their ability to win battles.
#291 to #175 - gatorade
Reply +1
(09/19/2013) [-]
You are partially right.

Though the use of Onagers(the catapult) were usually never used in open field combat since most were built on the spot of the siege, the Scorpion was used which was a 2 man machine that was basically the first field artillery. Ballistas were ******* huge multi-person team operated machines used in sieges, as well, just like Onagers.

Romans rarely charged into combat and would attempt to lure the enemy into attacking them first, using light cav or skirmishers. Roman armies would march in one solid block of metal and man and would basically be a sledgehammer if they were to attack, they'd maintain formation and use the "Roman saw-blade" which is just a wall of shields with gladius armed legionaries stabbing out.

You are right with how flexible the Romans were and would've easily smashed Sparta but they actually never fought and Rome just used words.
#177 to #175 - viscerys
Reply +1
(09/19/2013) [-]
Making sense is something your comment is good at. Thanks for clearing that up, and reminding me that I'm getting Rome 2 in a few days.
#179 to #177 - neverborn
Reply +1
(09/19/2013) [-]
ah, I really want Rome 2.
I'll have to content myself with shogun 2 till then
#180 to #179 - viscerys
Reply +1
(09/19/2013) [-]
I've yet to play Shogun. As good as Medieval 2?
#185 to #180 - neverborn
Reply +2
(09/19/2013) [-]
I thought so, but I'm pretty into the setting as well as nostalgia'ing everywhere thanks to playing the first one.

having the proper assassination cutscenes made me so happy
#186 to #185 - viscerys
Reply +1
(09/19/2013) [-]
I might get it. I hope it comes up for sale on Steam soon.
#188 to #186 - neverborn
Reply +1
(09/19/2013) [-]
it usually does, along with the DLC it has (warrior nuns are possibly the most amusing unit ever)
#192 to #188 - viscerys
Reply +1
(09/19/2013) [-]
Awesome. This conversation has been fruitful. Farewell, fan of Total War.
#193 to #192 - neverborn
Reply +1
(09/19/2013) [-]
you too, fellow fan ^ ^
#330 to #2 - miscarriage
Reply +1
(09/19/2013) [-]
whoa, so many toomblz
#331 to #330 - neverborn
Reply +1
(09/19/2013) [-]
thanks
#333 to #331 - miscarriage
Reply +1
(09/19/2013) [-]
YAH
#334 to #333 - neverborn
Reply +1
(09/19/2013) [-]
do I win anything?
#341 to #334 - miscarriage
Reply +1
(09/20/2013) [-]
noh
#159 to #2 - thepollock
Reply +1
(09/19/2013) [-]
It's the Hygeine that got them the spartans.
#222 to #2 - traelos
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
Don't forget discipline, endurance and organization.
#187 to #2 - anon
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
******* romans, hygeine is for pussys
#5 - YourLordAndMaster
Reply +79
(09/19/2013) [-]
Spartans also didn't fight in their underwear, they wore proper armour.
#28 to #5 - brutusantony
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
one of the many things that pissed me off about that movie
#21 to #5 - Rockaman
Reply +4
(09/19/2013) [-]
Depends on the era and the battle - there are a few accounts of Spartans fighting with little on, mostly against majorly inferior foes, probably as a boast to play on the foes fears.
#60 - specialone
Reply +68
(09/19/2013) [-]
The other reason for having two kings was so one could go off and lead the Spartans whenever they went to war whilst the other stayed behind and commanded the city.

Also, boys were trained from age 7 to fight, that was what the whole Spartan society was about. They were given one cloak, aimed to be too hot in summer and too cold in winter, and minimal food to force them to steal. If they were caught they were punished not for stealing, but for being caught.

There was a story that one boy, who had stolen and fostered a fox, upon being questioned by a leader let the fox eat his bowels before turning himself in.

The boys were trained in the "Agoge" which was essentially a military camp with boys ranging from 7 to 19. Upon their final year they were sent out into the wilderness to fend for themselves. Also, every Autumn Sparta declared war one their slaves. This ensured the slaves stayed in check and also taught the boys what it was like out on campaign, teaching them how to kill.

In addition, they were encouraged to sleep and love their fellow trainees as it was believed that if you loved the man next to you then you would fight better. The whole Spartan battle system relied on defending the man to your right and trusting the man to your left.

At age 20, upon the finish of training, they had to join a mess to become part of society. If they weren't voted in then they would try for another one. If after 10 years they were still unsuccessful then they were given a low citizenship rank.

The reason the ladies shaved their heads was that whole boy loving thing. Before the wedding the women would shave their head, and for the first year the husband and bride were only permitted to meet during the night. Even then, the men usually remained in the barracks and saw their wives very rarely.

In short, Spartans were born and trained tough. And they took it up the batty
#195 to #60 - imnotkickthecat
Reply +1
(09/19/2013) [-]
That would suck for the guy on the far right and left.

You got nobody to look after on the right side. And you got nobody to trust on the left side.
#244 to #195 - barhah
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
Exactly, which is why the king would always take the most vulnerable position in the Phalanx, the front right corner. He had nobody covering him with their shield, and his was covering the soldier on his left.
#112 to #60 - robertolee
Reply +10
(09/19/2013) [-]
Sparta, where being gay is promoted and manly as ****.
#157 to #112 - sheiladikshit
Reply +5
(09/19/2013) [-]
you can say they were sharing testosterone
#31 - unclaimedusername
Reply +44
(09/19/2013) [-]
>Sparta
~Tiny Nation (Basically a city-state)
~Small, simple, strong army
~Never conquered much land
~Can barely defend against Persia
~Now Called: Spartans or Sparta


>Macedonia
~Relatively large nation
~Large, strong, complex army (once again, relatively)
~Created largest empire at the time second only to the empire they ****** up
(Persia)
~Persia was their bitch
~Now called: Greeks or Greek Empire

In addition:
Greece's attitude towards Macedonia before Macedonian Empire: Non-Greek barbarians from the north
After Macedonian Empire: Macedonia = Greece, Macedonian is a dialect of Greek!

An also: The Macedonians never attacked the Spartans, Sparta attacked Macedonian-controlled Greece, and lost, despite there being 5,300 Spartans and allies vs. 3,500 Macedonians and allies


TL : DR Macedonia is better
#73 to #31 - alfjnn
Reply -2
(09/19/2013) [-]
Macedonia today is Slav.
Macedonia then was Greek. (Or At-least wrote all of its records in Greek.)

People Migrate, and the Slavs used to be pros at migrating.
#131 to #73 - mephiblis
Reply -1
(09/19/2013) [-]
Also, they wrote their official records in Greek because at that time Greek was what Latin was 5-10 centuries later.
#130 to #73 - mephiblis
Reply -1
(09/19/2013) [-]
>Macedonia today is Slav.

>Macedonia then was Greek.


Much implying. Macedonia then and Macedonia now was a separate entity. And to say it is Slav now is implying 100% purity of Slavic blood. Which is untrue for Macedonia or any other nation that the Slavs immigrated Like with all big migrations, the Slavs intermixed with the local populace which i'm 100% sure mixed with the people who were there before them and so on and on. But as a nation, Macedonia was established long before Greece so it can't be Greek in any logical way. Was it Hellenic? Sure, most likely. But if that makes Macedonia Greek, then ****, we should all be anexed by Italy, were we not all of us here under Rome's rule for quite a while?

#74 to #31 - alfjnn
Reply -2
(09/19/2013) [-]
>Greek Empire.

***** Puh-leeze.
The Greeks Just wanted to defend their Peninsula from from the east.

It was Alexander who took it to a whole other level.
(Persepolis etc)
#321 to #74 - unclaimedusername
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
Perhaps you don't quit understand, I was saying that modern people sometimes refer to Alexander's Empire as the Greek Empire, which apparently I wasn't clear enough in pointing out that I think is wrong
#342 to #321 - alfjnn
Reply 0
(09/20/2013) [-]
Culturally, the Macedonian was Greek, it wasn't some profound independent culture different from the Greek city states.
#35 to #31 - johnnybtrollin
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
The former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia is Greek!!!
#43 to #35 - unclaimedusername
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
No, just no
#45 to #43 - johnnybtrollin
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
but makedonija is of greek and alexander the great ;-;
#46 to #45 - unclaimedusername
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
You had me for a while there, and then I read your usename
#67 to #31 - anon
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
Nationality of Macedonians: Some people post comments claiming that Macedonia was a separate country from Greece. This is totally out of line, because there was no Greek state back then. If we try to identify their nationality by modern sense of nationalism, then we would end up claiming that there were no ancient Greeks and no ancient Greece. Borders and passport do not make a nationality.
Ancient Greeks had a different way of identifying their nationality than some countries do today. Roots, language, culture were some of the criteria and not the administrative divisions.



#125 to #31 - sonarfaces
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
Where are you from dude?
#139 to #31 - pandahuggrstabbr
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
And nobody ever mentions how the Athenian navy was the real reason the spartans won the battle of Thermopylae (where the movie takes place). There was no ************* storm, that was the Athenian navy crushing them against horrible odds.
#204 to #139 - specialone
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
Nobody mentions Marathon either, which was where the real **** went down. That's the whole ******* reason Thermoylae happened, to buy the other cities more time.
#140 to #31 - DaBullshiter
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
Silly fyrom citizen.
#241 to #31 - rakoom
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
Sounds like comparing a nation to a city.

Sparta's fame isn't really all that grand due to what they achieved or what greatness they had and what impact they had on the world.

Their fame (and fanbases) are based upon the fact that they were truly epic in what little size they had in numbers, compared to what might they had in battle-prowess and style. That, and the one thing 300 so perfectly managed to focus on which made the Spartans an epic part of military history: The war where they held their stand surprisingly successfully, using only 300 soldiers. They all died, but what other army could've succeeded in such an amazing feat using so very few men?
#298 to #241 - unclaimedusername
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
~Sparta was a nation and a city, hence City-State

~Most movies do a horrible job at historical accuracy (action movies especially)

~You're pulling your facts from a movie, yes, there were 300 Spartans, there were also about 7,000 other assorted Greeks fighting alongside them
#318 to #298 - rakoom
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
Nono, I didn't include the details because the details are redundant to my point.

The spartans faced exctintion (sorta) in the face of a spectacular army. And what did they reply with? 300 soldiers. The 7000 was a lovable addition to their efforts, but in the end it was a battle between Leonidas and his men versus Xerxes and his army, not Xerxes versus the greeks and spartans. Though the greeks played a grand, important role in the battle, they're still redundant to the main point itself: The spartans were good at what they were doing. Few armies would be as afficient as them if put into an equally large army. The spartans weren't flawless, but they were damn sure one of the greatest army-troops any army could ask for.
#324 to #318 - unclaimedusername
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
So you're saying that 300 Spartans are as a military force more powerful than 7,000 soldiers from any other nation of the time period?
#326 to #324 - rakoom
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
No. I'm saying that 300 of their men would likely be more significant of an army than 300 men of most other armies in the world of that time period.

I can think of no finer warriors than them in sheer skill, efficiency, indimitation and impact, but it's debatable. If you know of some other more efficient breed of warriors then pray do tell though. Always interesting to hear about.
#327 to #326 - unclaimedusername
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
Ah, the way you said it first made me think that, I apologize.
#328 to #327 - rakoom
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
No worries.
#39 to #31 - dickleberry
Reply +1
(09/19/2013) [-]
then again it even says in most history books that greece wasnt even a nation due to its mountains so they couldnt communicate so it is a city state and alexander the great was from a city state in northern greece so without alexander macedonia wouldve most likely not of done as well
#42 to #39 - unclaimedusername
Reply -1
(09/19/2013) [-]
Alexander was from the Macedonian Capitol of Pella and Macedonia wasn't a Greek City-state, if they were a city state they would have been called Pella and the Pellan(?) Empire and the various Greeks city-states made it very clear to the Macedonians that they were not Greek, such as when the Spartans fought against the Macedonians, they considered themselves to be fighting for Greece, not just Sparta.
#70 to #42 - Aglarod
Reply +1
(09/19/2013) [-]
Macedonia was a hellenic kingdom, inhabited by one of the hellenic dorian tribes, the macedonians. Like the kingdom of cyprus or epirus (where alexanders mother is from - and no i dont mean illyria albanian fellows)

Yes, Spartans did say they do what they do for everyone else ( is it surprising they would try to pass it over as such? , they needed people to defect from the union ), but also Spartans were getting money from Persians to betray everyone else.
#50 to #31 - specialone
Reply +1
(09/19/2013) [-]
There was no such thing as the "Greek Empire".

Ancient Greece, as we know it as, was simply a collection of city-states that were pretty much always at war with one another. There are only two recorded occasions when the "Greek" cities came to fight as one.

The first was the battle of Troy when Sparta asked for the assistance of the other cities to get Helen back.

The second was the Persian Wars which was deemed as such a threat to all of the city states that they agreed to come together and fight.
#51 to #50 - unclaimedusername
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
Did you read or just pick and choose words?
#52 to #51 - specialone
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
I'm saying there's no such thing as a Greek Empire.

I was adding additional information that I thought was pretty neat.
#57 to #52 - unclaimedusername
Reply +1
(09/19/2013) [-]
Yes, i guess I forgot to add the fact that there never was a Greek Empire, however I have hear Alexander's Macedonian Empire called that, hence why I put it there
#58 to #57 - specialone
Reply +1
(09/19/2013) [-]
Fair enough.
#64 to #31 - hawaiianhappysauce
Reply +1
(09/19/2013) [-]
Sparta didn't have a strong navy either. An important factor in that whole battle between Greece and Persia was the Athens navy.

#66 to #31 - infiniteduress
Reply +2
(09/19/2013) [-]
Greece's attitude towards Macedonia was well founded. The Macedonians weren't from Greece, they were from the Ancient Near East (Middle East).

Also when you say Macedonia=Greece, I don't understand what you are trying to say, when an area is conquered and becomes part of an empire it loses its identity for the most part.

As to the fighting between Sparta (King Agis III) and Macedonia (Phillip II, Alexanders father), Macedonia took/allied itself with all the lands surrounding Sparta, and Agis III started feeling the pressure and attempted to capture Crete, which belonged to Macedonia. Macedonia counter attacked with a massive force. The Spartans were in fact outnumbered in that battle, the numbers you give are actually casualties not army sizes.
#69 to #66 - Aglarod
Reply +1
(09/19/2013) [-]
Some facts about the Greeks:
Dorians, Ionians, Aeolians, Achaeans were the 4 major tribes into which the Greeks considered the population of Hellenes to have been divided.
You need to login to view this link

Macedonians were a Dorian tribe. Same as Spartans.
source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorians

Macedonians spoke a Doric Greek dialect
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Macedonian_language

Ancient Greece was an area with many city-states and Kingdoms. During the history of Ancient Greece a total of 1,500 to 2,000 city-states - Kingdoms were established. Athens, Sparta, Corinth, Thebes, Epirus, Macedonia, Eretria, Chalkis were some of them.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Greek_countries_and_regions

The idea of a Pan-Hellenic (Greek) country, was expressed by the Athenian Isocrates, who also wrote a letter to King Philip.
You need to login to view this link

Only Greeks had the right to participate on the Olympic games. Macedonians took part on them.

Alexander: but I am myself a Greek by descent, and I would not willingly see Greece exchange freedom for slaver. Herodot Book 9,45 (KALLIOPI)

----------------------------------------­-------------------------------------- --­-----------
But after all, did Alexander the Great consider himself a Greek?
Alexander the Great quote:

Above all, we are free men, and they are slaves. There are Greek troops, to be sure, in Persian service but how different is their cause from ours! They will be fighting for pay and not much of at that; We, on the contrary, shall fight for Greece, and our hearts will be in it. As for our foreign troops, Thracians, Paeonians, Illyrians, Agrianes, they are the best and stoutest soldiers in Europe, and they will find as their opponents the slackest and softest of the tribes of Asia.
#234 to #69 - gerfox
Reply +1
(09/19/2013) [-]
The mother of Alexander was Greek, from Athens if I recall correctly.
#76 to #69 - infiniteduress
Reply +1
(09/19/2013) [-]
You bring up some interesting points. But the Macedonians weren't a Dorian tribe, they were of the Makednoi Tribe. Macedonian invaders began moving south, when they got to the peninsula they settled down, intermarried with the locals, and were renamed the Dorians. 300 years later when Phillip conquered Greece, they didn't identify with each other.

If you read the article on Ancient Macedonian language, you will find that it was an Amalgam of many ancient Greek dialects, not specifically Dorian at all.

Alexander the Great was first and foremost a Macedonian. He was King of Macedon, while merely being General of Greece. Greek wasn't a race or nationality it was a region that Greeks only identified with when they were unified (during the Trojan war, and under Macedonian rule).
#310 to #66 - namdrut
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
also of note, during Xerxes invasion during the second persian war, the macedonians were defeated pretty quickly and easily because their cavalry got ****** up. and that was because the persians used camels which apparently scare horses.

anyway, i'm pretty sure we can all agree that both macedon and sparta were equally awesome in their own ways.
#146 to #31 - Mynameismario
Reply +2
(09/19/2013) [-]
Stop being so butthurt you fags!

Can't we just all be happy?!

Half Macedonian-Greek here.
The whole world hates us both as it is.
#72 to #31 - alfjnn
Reply +3
(09/19/2013) [-]
#68 to #31 - plaguehammer
Reply +7
(09/19/2013) [-]
Romans were better than all the others. Rome conquered Macedonia and Sparta. The Greeks/Spartans/Macedonians used the phalanx which was this really tough, unflexible spear armed shield wall. The Legion's shield wall was much more mobile and powerful, to the point where the legion defeated the phalanx while fighting UPHILL!

You guys can wax pretty about Spartans and Macedonians all you want, but the Macedonian empire was ****, it fell apart the second Alexander died and the only amazing thing about it was how much was conquered. The Roman Empire lasted for a thousand years, if you count it until the byzantine empire's fall, then 1500 years,

Sparta, Alexander, Ramses. All bitches compared to Rome. Rome is best ancient civilization.
#201 to #68 - specialone
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
I take your point but what about Hannibal? He defeated the Romans every time he faced them and would've smashed Rome had he not been too self-conscious.

I do agree though that the Romans, as a population, had an uncanny knack for just dealing with **** and moving on. I mean they created their capital in a ******* stupid place with no harbour to speak of with a river that required dredging every now and then just to ensure it was still open to trade.

Then whenever they got invaded the people fought back, forcing the conquerors to leave.

Romans were badass.
#207 to #201 - plaguehammer
Reply +2
(09/19/2013) [-]
Hannibal fought against consuls. Fat politicians elected to be "commander-in-Chief" and had no real background as soldiers. When FINALLY the senate got their heads out their asses and appointed a REAL general, Hannibal got smashed by Scipio's forces and Carthage was sacked, burned, razed and the earth was salted so that nothing may grow on that soil for centuries.

That's not the only time this happened either, around 115 to 108 BC, three german tribes wreaked havoc on the italian homeland and the senate kept appointing more and more inpet politicians as consuls to go and fight and lose hundreds of thousands of soldiers until FINALLY they recalled Gaius Marius who ******* SMASHED the germans.

The Romans were insanely good at warfare, for example, Boudicca destroyed a legion, what happened? the Romans sent a real general and destroyed her army that outnumbered the Romans 2 to 1. There's a very famous battle in Germania, the battle of Teutoburg Forest, it's supposed to show that the germans couldnt be conquered and ****. That's all that people remember, teutoburg, teutoburg.

No one remembers that after that battle, Rome was pissed, sent legions and absolutely MASSACRED the germans in retaliation, and Roman retaliation was not something you wanted, when a town in Gaul rebelled once too many times, Julius Caesar had the right hand of every man and male child was cut off and people were amazing at how lenient Caesar was.

TLR
I love Roman history, the Roman Legion was ******* badass.
#212 to #207 - specialone
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
Yeah, but Scipio essentially copied Hannibal's battle plans. Hannibal by that point was absolutely ****** after suffering from an infected wound and was commanding an army of mercenaries who hadn't been paid in a very long time.

Also, the fact that he went overland in winter to try and conquer Rome shows just how much extra weight in his pants he must've been lugging around due to his huge balls.

I agree with you though, never mess with Rome. Although I did prefer studying Ancient Greece.
#215 to #212 - plaguehammer
Reply +1
(09/19/2013) [-]
ah, you are perfectly right about Scipio copying Hannibal, but that's what made the Romans so terrifying. They invented nothing, they took all the best tactics of their enemies and created the perfect army for the time. They stole their helmet design and their chainmail from gauls. They stole their shield design from the Etruscans. They just copied tons of stuff and thats what made them the best.
#216 to #215 - specialone
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
True that.

Gotta love a guy who's passionate about his history.
#218 to #216 - plaguehammer
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
thanks ^^ same to you. It's an injustice I never got Roman History in school, I'd have gotten straight A's lol

I read some of Suetonius and Plutarch. But my favorite has to be the commentaries on the Gallic War by Julius Caesar
#108 - motherfuckingkenji
Reply +34
(09/19/2013) [-]
Contrary to popular portrayal, Spartans never fought in their underwear.
They wore incredibly powerful, expensive (each suit cost about as much as the average cruiser due to the underlying crystalline matrix) and complicated power armor made of Titanium-A.

They lost to the Persians because they didn't have energy shields at the time. It was only after they lost one of their best soldiers named Sam that they developed them.
#118 to #108 - hiyorin
Reply -5
(09/19/2013) [-]
No, just... no.
#124 to #118 - motherfuckingkenji
Reply +7
(09/19/2013) [-]
How about yes.
How about yes.
#133 to #124 - kaiferin
Reply +3
(09/19/2013) [-]
Lol'd.
#165 to #108 - imaweshume
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
No they didnt.
#163 to #108 - DontDeleteMeAgain
Reply +2
(09/19/2013) [-]
oh the references
the references i tell ya!
#197 to #108 - imnotkickthecat
Reply +2
(09/19/2013) [-]
Rip in peace Sam. The first member of blue team down.
#203 to #197 - ZakisBak
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
Rest in peace in peace? And I don't think 343 is the devil, although they made halo 4 to compete with CoD, which is a fatal flaw. I think Bungie back stabbed everyone.
#240 to #203 - thelastelephant
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
Bungie wanted Halo to end. Microsoft thought otherwise, resulting in the lousy "Call of Duty: Space Edition" that is Halo 4.
#275 to #240 - mcnizzlezz
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
Since when did Bungie want Halo to end? They were originally planning on making Halo 4 but they instead made Halo: Reach.
#279 to #275 - thelastelephant
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. I dunno. All I know is that Bungie probably would've made Halo 4 far better than what it is now.
#282 to #279 - mcnizzlezz
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
Probably
#283 to #282 - thelastelephant
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
I know that story-wise Halo was supposed to end at 2, but it was split into 2 and 3. And Bungie did debate developing 4 but settled on Reach instead.

/end rant
#284 to #283 - mcnizzlezz
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
How do you know it was supposed to end at Halo 2/3?
#288 to #284 - thelastelephant
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
Podcasts. Jason Jones originally intended for the series to end at 2, but because of time constraints the story was split in half and extended to 3.
#142 to #108 - avatarsarefornoobs
Reply +4
(09/19/2013) [-]
i thought it was clever, what everyone suddenly hates halo now?
#196 to #142 - imnotkickthecat
Reply +1
(09/19/2013) [-]
its the "DAE think 343 is literally the devil" circle jerk on the internet now.
#87 - dcj
Reply +31
(09/19/2013) [-]
300 doesn't mention how 90% of Sparta's population were slaves captured on campaigns. The full-time warrior class was supported by slave labor, but the movie railed on and on about FREEEEEEEEDOOOOOOM and ****.   
******* hollywood, man.
300 doesn't mention how 90% of Sparta's population were slaves captured on campaigns. The full-time warrior class was supported by slave labor, but the movie railed on and on about FREEEEEEEEDOOOOOOM and ****.
******* hollywood, man.
#97 to #87 - malcolmcz
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
******* gif I cant stop watching
#145 to #87 - goodcheese
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
that's why they became a military society was to keep the helots in servitude and since they provided all the food and supplies needed sparta could focus on making everyone a warrior. but yea it did piss me off with all that talk about free men not being enslaved, i'm sure if any helot was around during a speech like that they would've rolled their eyes.
#245 to #87 - goblingang
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
And funnily enough, the Persian empire didn't have slaves, as their Zoroastrian faith didn't permit it, and they were generally tolerant to their subjects, allowing kings to keep their positions and having a freedom of religion. Basically, Persia only attacked Greece because Athens was supporting rebels in Anatolia.
#250 to #245 - hudis
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
Doubt that's entirely true. The Persian Empire was one of the largest empires that have ever existed, in a time long before infrastructure and communications were properly established parts of society. The vassals of Xerxes were likely very diverse in their ways and manners, depending on where they were, and it's a bit unrealistic to say that none of them had slaves in abundance or that they all treated their people well.
#258 to #250 - goblingang
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
Cyrus the Great, when founding his empire, banned slavery and declared religious freedom. The Archaemenid empire also left the areas they conquered fairly autonomous as long as they paid taxes and paid taxes to the "King of Kings". Now while slavery was banned, there was most likely a system more closely resembling serfdom.
#260 to #258 - hudis
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
Yeah, but that's the thing with autonomous vassals from right about then until the end of feudalism; their freedom and freedom to express their power means a freedom to do what they want. Some may have been loyal to the law, certainly, but men in power rarely are if they can get away with it.

I'm not saying I'm well-read on Persian history by any means, I'm just chipping in with what I know about leadership and ancient kingdoms.
#155 to #87 - undeadwill
Reply +1
(09/19/2013) [-]
They did have a voting system set up in 700 BC so its something.

However they were no different from any other city state at the time that enslaved the losers of war as slaves. Hell even the founding fathers supported slavery.
#286 - kristovsky
Reply +17
(09/19/2013) [-]
#98 - nextnextnextnext
Reply +12
(09/19/2013) [-]
"Sparta and it's citizens are today best known because of movie 300"
#178 to #98 - yetiyitties
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
It's true. Facepalm about the people who never heard abt Spartans until 300
#198 to #178 - imnotkickthecat
Reply +2
(09/19/2013) [-]
Ima give you a list of places where the average modern day citizen never cared about ancient Sparta before 300.

-Everywhere outside of the Balkans.
#251 to #198 - hudis
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
We read about Sparta extensively in school in Sweden when I was a kid, before 300 was a thing. The film may have boosted Sparta's popularity but it's not like no one knew who they were before its release.
#100 to #98 - scruffyguy
Reply +6
(09/19/2013) [-]
Its not like he's wrong, most people couldn't give two ***** about ancient Sparta until that movie came out.
#102 to #100 - nextnextnextnext
Reply +4
(09/19/2013) [-]
we definitely live in different places, man.

Cheers
#84 - Tazdingo
Reply +12
(09/19/2013) [-]
There are people on this Earth that didn't know about Spartans until 300?
#281 to #84 - FairyGodParents
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
Why does this surprise people, where do most people find out about spartans? I don't find war and empires terribly interesting so I don't research it, idk.
#332 to #281 - Tazdingo
Reply 0
(09/19/2013) [-]
Greek city-states are part of basic education, you learn about those in 5th grade history class, literally the first year history class is introduced into your education, to not know about them is like not hearing about the roman empire or the vikings or the crusades.
#339 to #332 - FairyGodParents
Reply 0
(09/20/2013) [-]
Where are you from? In Canada we only really focused on recent history and modern geography.
#181 to #84 - yetiyitties
Reply +1
(09/19/2013) [-]
Yes. Most people don't know ****.
#4 - stupu
Reply +12
(09/19/2013) [-]
You forgot to mention that contrary to the movie, 300 spartans did not attack tens of thousands of persians alone. Instead it was an army of thousands made up of spartans, thespians, and thebians. When the persians outflanked the Greeks, 300 spartans - 400 thebans - and 700 thespians stayed behind and were killed while they covered their comrades retreat.