YO GUYS! Do not worry. It is the Enemies of the ROMAN REPUBLIC! Not the Roman Empire! I can hardly insert Dacians and Persians in that timeline. All the other nations will be part of my second video about the Roman Empire, worry not.
weeeellllll you could claim, that the bellum sociale kinda ended the republic with their effects. this war destroyed the economy of their allied cities. After all the riot of the slaves were often not slaves, but these farmers and citizen of these cities in Italy, who still hated Rome, because they lost their possession in this bloody conflict. The endeffect was a massive boom of population in Rome in these times of the old republic. In these times a lot of these poor people were easily influenced by speakers like Cicero, but easily rallied by people like Catalina and Clodius. This instability explained the destruction of the republic by a "popular" leader like Pompeius, Caesar, Antonius and later Octavian. the Italian migrant mob, awarded with citizenship and poverty after a war, who flocked into the Roman republic based on a city structure, made the Roman republic fall. creating the Roman civilwar should be rewarded with some points. (same for Gaul) These effects were earned with suffering by these "barbarous" enemies under the Barbary of Rome.
"Brothers and sisters are natural enemies, like Carthaginians and Romans. Or Gauls and Romans. Or Parthians and Romans. Or Romans and other Romans. Jupiter damned Romans - THEY RUINED ROME!"
Agreed, Parthian campaign killed Crassus. They never threatened Rome itself and Rome ultimately conquered as much as it wanted, but they would have fit in nicely around the Seleucids.
On the Iberians fanaticism, when the last tribes were conquered by Agrippa he had some of the cantabri and astures crucified, the madlads happily sung war chants, as they prefered to die as free man than to live as roman slaves. Mass suicide of the defeated tribes was not uncommon.
@@Ironpancakemoose Best part? Those celts didn't really exactly lose. Romans decided to cool things out and Astures and Cantabros (north-nortwest of the Peninsula) accepted it. They didn't get romanized until the Visigoths came, and never got exactly the full package. Also, Astur cavalry changed how the war worked for Romans for ever, but that's another long story.
Carthage is the best beats the rest. What would Rome be with a Carthage? It would just be another savage Italian city state. Everything great about Rome they learned from Carthage, or from the Greeks, who learned it from the Phoenicians.
200 years to conquer Iberia. Freaking insane. Whether it's the Romans in Numancia, the Arabs in Asturias, or Napoleon in Spain, Iberia is a royal pain in the ass to occupy.
The fact that Rome had to cheat to defeat Iberians and overcome their guerrilla tactics and terrain knowledge superiority makes me proud to be an Iberian xD
You could argue that the iberians managed to inflict more damage than most on the list. The endless wars with no spoils ruined the roman citzen soldiers. A soldier goes of to war, and his farm sufferes in his abscence, the if he even return, he brings nothing but scars and stories. In the end his family is forced to sell the farm, and try their luck in Rome. Slowly but surely this undermines the entire basis for the republican armies.
Iberia was one of the oldest examples of how brutal and effective guerrila warfare can be. In the end, they lost because they betrayed themselves and an inside job helped the romans. The atrition romans suffered in iberia is often underrated.
The barbarian invasions were irrilevant because they as a consequence and not as a cause of the fall of the empire. The Roman army at it height was unbeatable. The Romans Lost battles but Always won the war as happened with carthage which was their most powerful enemy
Important thing to remember is that if Rome is weak at the time the enemies seem stronger and vice versa, Dacia as an enemy was much more organised, better equipped, fortified etc more formidable than Cisalpine Gaul but at the point they clashed was the Empire at its strongest with its full might on the aggressive whereas those gauls were an existential threat to early Rome's survival, but I'm not sure that makes them a more powerful enemy Looking forward to the next video
@@xenotyposI don’t think so , Pompey had great feats in his bags ( defeated the Illyrian pirates that for centuries create a mess of the Mediterranean so much that they almost risk famine in Rome with the missing delivery from Egypt for food … Also he fight and wins many other tribes in Spain and North Africa and pacified the eastern of the republic .. As Julio Caesar he conquered Gauls , pacified the Celtic/Germans tribe at the border more than once probably three or four times during his career and as well conquered Egypt and pacified eastern empire again + defeated the other seasoned warriors of the internal enemies of the empire … Now the main point I want to make is they have the qualifications full grades but dacians , some German tribes and Parthian were extreme difficult to deal with and why ? Both of those enemies did and had the same problem : -1 tendency to never fully commit on big campaign battle but to ambush All of them were at the border of the empire , supply line longer and more hard to maintain (Parthian especially). Plus their method of war (as well as the equipment used greatly differ from the more common used in most of Europe ..) But don’t forget that Caesar lost many battles and Pompey were utterly defeated by Caesar only for miscommunication between their ranks of the army and he didn’t event try to go look by himself to see if it was true … The real champ of Roman history for my are mainly : - scipione to defeat Hannibal and literally humiliated other enemies in Spain , Greek and turkey -Agrippa , for him august gain the power of the senate and he defeated all the tribes in Germany ip all the way to the nord pushing the border -Germanicus another extremely strong generals from the empire as well as Trajan
The concept of the Gauls being a true threat though is a little murky, as most of what we know about the conflict is from the Roman side, Caesar particularly. And he had a vested interest in making them seem like the WORST thing possible for political reasons (he's the guy who beat the worst thing possible). The potential might have been there if the Gauls united, but I'm not sure they were really a huge threat to Rome at that point. Caesar got involved in Gaul due to all the infighting going on at the time. He actually helped unite most of Gaul, against him, lol.
This is exactly what I thought. Rome whilst facing early enemies like Carthage and Epirus wasn't the military machine that they were when facing later opponents like Pontus, Seleucids, Egypt, Gauls, etc. This is just considering the military side of Rome, let's not forget that as Rome defeated its early enemies it also gained economic strength and resources to fund better and larger armies and also had centuries of experience to draw from.
A lot of North African Berber/Amazigh words actually come from punic. In terms of any remains or ruins, they don't exist because when Carthage was rebuilt it was sacked by the Arab invaders in the 7th/8th century and completely destroyed.@@lennartherix6872
As a Portuguese, we study a lot the story of Viriathus. We also study that the Iberians were in the southeast of the peninsula, the celts on the northwest (including the Lusitanians, which the portuguese see their ancestors) and that the middle was a mix of the both groups called Celtiberians.
There is still some debate as to whether the Lusitani were celts or not. Some say yes, some think they were their own people like the basque but who were strongly influenced by the celts and so became celtic in culture.
@@mbern4530 There is no debate. The Lusitani called themselves Celts in their own tombstones, votive altars and personal pottery items like pots and combs. You can't fast-forward 2,000 years and take away the name of a people just because of some linguistic excuse given by modern academics. 2,000 years ago the Lusitanians called themselves Celts in their personal names. Herodotus even referred to these Celts when he said the Celts lived "beyond the Pillars of Hercules" - meaning westward of the Strait of Gibraltar. It is not morally correct to come up with modern-theories through which we could therefore remove the Lusitanians from being Celts when they used the literal name "Celts" for their literal personal last names (Celti, Celtiati, Celtici, Celtigun, etc). "Lusitanian" is an exonym. They did not call themselves "Ambatus Lusitani" in their personal names, but instead "Ambatus Celti". Once again, the endonym of the Lusitani was Celti. So there cannot be a debate of whether they were "Celts" when that was many variants of their personal names. As to whether they spoke Celtic, Wodtko said "it is hard to find anything in Lusitanian which isn't Celtic". Also remember just because they wrote P doesn't mean they pronounced P - most of the P-words found are also found in B-variants, showing it was probably not pronounced P. Celtic languages do not have initial P-sound. The rule is not "Celtic languages do not have initial P-letter". It's about the sound. And the words found with initial-P in Lusitanian are mostly also found with a variant using an initial-B. So the claim that initial-P in Lusitanian necessarily sounded like /p/ is actually very weak and contradicted by the evidence. There is no secure evidence that Lusitanian actually had an initial /p/ sound.
@@TominusMaximus More or less. Even Ephorus who simplified so much to say "in the West live the Celts (and no one else)" in his purposefully-simplified model of the most populous peoples of the four corners of the world, still differentiated between the Celts and the Iberians in Iberia - and many other authors were also careful enough to identify several different ethnicities in Iberia, usually with the Celts separated from the Iberians: "It is sometimes suggested (Chapman 1992) that the ancients used the term "Celt" as a vague term for western barbarians, rather as the Byzantines, remembering their ancient history, referred to the western Crusaders as Keltoi, or as the British referred to the Germans as "the Hun" during World War I (Sims-Williams 2012a, 33). There is very little evidence for such a vague usage of "Celt". The locus classicus is Ephorus in the fourth century BC. In an astronomical context, Ephorus assigned the four points of the compass schematically to Indians, Ethiopians, Celts and Scythians. Since no Greek can have been unaware that Persians, Egyptians and others also inhabited the east and south, it follows that it cannot be assumed that Ephorus was only aware of Celts in the west. In fact, in another context, Ephorus did distinguish between Celts and Iberians. A century earlier, Herodotus had already contrasted the Cynetes (in Portugal) with the Celts, while Herodorus of Heraclea distinguished between the Kelkianoi (Keltianoi?) and five other Hispanic peoples, including the Cynetes. Other early Greek writers, including Timagetus, Timaeus and Apollonius of Rhodes, continued to refer to the Celts as a distinct people (see further Sims-Williams 2016; 2017a). Among the Romans, Varro (116-27 BC), for instance, named four peoples besides the Celtae who settled in Hispania (Pliny, Natural History 3.1.8). So "Celt" was not normally a vague term like our "oriental". The source for this is the paper Sims-Williams, Patrick. An Alternative to 'Celtic from the East' and 'Celtic from the West', 2020.
I love it. But you forgot Parthia and also the Britons (Julius Caesar invaded Brittannia in 55 and 54 BCE). And also you forgot the Germans (who invaded Gaul and clashed with Caesar), the Helvetians, the Cilician pirates, Bythinia (aided by Hannibal, defeated a Roman flotilla), Armenia (Tigranes), Cyrenaica (like Pergamon passed to Rome, but in 96 BCE), Corsica (you mentioned it, but didn't tell about the conquest and occupation and how easy it was), the Jewish Hasmonean Kingdom and the Balearic Islands.
@@Hypogeal-Foundation greeks count as uncivilized barbarians. Except the submissive twinks. Those make admirable wives. Go check out the unbiased history of Rome. It does not dissapoint ;)
If we take all of Roman history (753 BC to 1453 AD) S tier: Roman Civil War, Plague A tier: Plague, RCW B tier: Sassanids, Carthage, Arabs, Turks, Bulgars C tier: Germanic tribes, Gauls, all other steppe nomads, D tier: Greeks, Numidians
Nice video idea ahah I'd pull the Carthaginian will to fight down, or at least not relate it with the third Punic war. They weren´t fanatically defending, they knew a genocide was coming.
I wonder how much higher the Etruscans would've ranked if they timed their betrayals a little better? For certain had they marched with Hannibal when he arrived, they might've won! If only the Etruscan's response time wasn't so anemic...
As a Portuguese brings me joy to see someone giving credit to the Iberians and Portugal being Lusitania the homeland of Viriathus even more, it´s just sad they rather speak about Germania, Britannia and Gaul, while Gaul being about the same size of Iberia and took them less than a decade to be conquered while Iberia took more than 200 years, but this land is overlooked thru all history, even if we are home of the longest conflict in history the "Reconquista" which lasted around 800 years, thanks alot, mate!
Because conquest of Iberia were mostly skirmishes. Gauls-B. of Alesia. Germania-Teoutoburg forest. Carthage-Zama etc. But Iberia is just this strange attack and retreat pattern, no decisive battles. It is difficult to pass that on someone. The conflict is difficult to understand.
@@TominusMaximus indeed but for that very reason it should be more videos simplifying this conflict many people know Romans took 200 years to conquer but they dont how or why and I think you forgot to mention but Iberians would raid roman towns in North Africa too and its also remarkable that during the Cimbrii Wars, the germanics defeated Rome many times and they were stopped and defeated on Hispânia by a coalition of Iberians, and most of the roman equipment was copied from Iberia, in their minds Iberians were one of the best military speaking as it this land is considered Rome's Vietnam and Napoleons also.
Iberian warfare hasn't changed thru history which is why is difficult to conquer, guerrilla warfare with skirmishes about charging and retreating, ambushing and general population being very hostile to invaders
Your ancestors changed the course of European and world history. Without Rome, much of Europe and the rest of the world would be much more fractured and tribalistic. The age of European discovery across the Atlantic may never had happened.
We gotta give recognition to the Gauls. They were not united, yet they decided to abandon their hostilities and differences to join forces against a common for: Rome. Even if they lost, these guys had balls of steel.
This is why I'm proud of living in their lands. I know that probably speaking of Gauls in modern Lombardy is exaggerated, since many centuries passed and many peoples migrated and so on, but still probably a good chunk of our genetics comes from them :) that's cool! Love how the Celts never lost their hope of getting rid of a foreign invasor.
You forgot to mention the most irritating enemies that Rome had ever encountered in 50 BC, a village of indomitable Gauls in Armorica that still hold out against it's legions and makes the life of the surrounding garrisons of Compendium, Aquarium, Laudanum and Totorum not easy at all. The short mustached one and the fat one also occasionally causes mayhem whenever they travel into other Roman provinces (do NOT call the fat one fat or you can be sure that he'll give a good beating to those Romans).
When the Celtiberians were defeated, they sometimes ingested yew, a fatal poison that made their lips curl into a smile, which menaced the Roman soldiers beyond the grave.
It actually took Julius Caesar 8 years (not 2) to submit the gallic tribes. And you didn't even mention Ambiorix, who put up a good fight as well. I would put them way higher on the list.
*Rome has had so many Civil Wars, I'd argue the Roman Senate, Emperors and Legions themselves were the greatest threats to Rome itself across its run as a Kingdom, Republic, and Empire.*
I really liked this video! I personally would have given the Transalpine Gauls some extra points for Ambiorix. With one tribe he managed to defeat an entire legion and five cohorts. He did this by first negotiating with the Romans and then stabbing them in the back. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
The use of the Latin passive gerund makes my brain happy. It doesn't exist in English outside of a few words: "I'm Amanda. That means beloved." "Yes, it does. Literally.", people take massive liberties in translating them: Carthago delenda est is actually "Carthage is that which is to be destroyed."
Where is Armenia ? Great Armenia was one of the countries that Rome feared the most, as Ciceron said : « Tigrane (his King) made the Roman republic tremble by the promesse of his armies ».
The Carthaginians are said to be descendants of Troy who escaped after the fall of Troy. Basically, they had a similar culture as Greeks and Greeks too sacrificed humans. 😂😂😂
@@herearewe Actually no, the Aneid is the story that follows the descendants of Troy immediately following its fall. They pass THROUGH Carthage as it was a pre-existing civilization, its queen Dido falls in love with the Trojan protagonist and curses him for forsaking her. Carthage was a Phoenician, a Levantine Canaanite people, colony. It was one of the many places Phoenician and Israelite peoples fled to when the Assyrians invaded the region. They worshipped the Canaanite gods and sacrificed people (including children) following Semitic rituals, not Greek.
@@hereareweCarthage where apart of the Phoenician Canaanite semetic people. Cannite being levant natufians + ancient iranic people. Haplgroup j1 and j2. Pretty much what Palestinians and Lebanon Arabs are today
Beautiful and interesting, but you forgot in your presentation of the Dacians from the north of the Danube river. Great Roman emperors paid tribute to the Dacians led by Burebista or Decebal. And even if Rome conquered the capital of Dacia, Sarmisegetusa, under the great emperor Trajan, they only managed to occupy 14% of the Dacian territory. After a while, they gave up the province, retreating south of the Danube (Aureliana retreat). Frumos si interesant, dar ai uitat in prezentarea ta de daci de la nord de fluviul Dunărea. Mari imparati romani au platit tribut dacilor condusi de Burebista sau Decebal. Si chiar daca Roma a cucerit capitala Daciei, Sarmisegetusa, sub marele imparat Traian, ei nu au reusit sa ocupe decat 14% din teritoriul dac. Mai mult după un timp au renuntat la provincie retragandu-se la sud de Dunare (retragerea Aureliana).
This is pure gold, nice video, I just wonder if you want to make a second part, now with the late empire time, to see Parthians, Huns, Sassanids, Armenians, Anglo-Saxon, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Vandals, Alamanni, etc. Well, thanks for the video, I will watch it several times, love you man (No Homo)
Neither the Angles nor the Saxons (if there ever were such defined groups) were veritable threats to Rome to be compared to these other peoples. They would raid along the "Saxon Shore" in Britain and some of Northern Gaul, but by the time they escalated their attacks in Britain Rome had already pulled out of there.
There were NO Iberians in any of the territory marked in this map. All the battles, wars, territory and events mentioned in the "Iberian" chapter was refered to the Celtic peoples of Hispania. The Iberians, the actual tribal group called "Iberians", were easily conquered, the Carthaginians conquered them and then then the Romans took their land afterwards and then there was a couple of rebellions that were put down relatively easily. It was the Celts who resisted for 200 years. It was the Celtiberians (CELTIC, not Iberian, they merely used the Iberian alphabet just like the Gauls used the Greek one) who rebelled twice and held the grueling sige of Numantia. It was the Lusitanians (CELTIC, NOT IBERIAN), who under Viriatus actually defeated the Romans in the battlefield multiple times and forced favourable peace treaties with Rome. The Gallaeci, Cantabri and Astures, the last independent tribes in the mountainous North of the Peninsula, who fought to the last man and had the women kill their children and themselves to avoid slavery, were also CELTS, and not Iberians. There were also other tribes in the peninsula that were neither Celtic or Iberian, such as the Aquitani and the Turdetani. The Turdetani also only rebelled unsucesfully once, and the Aquitani immediately subbmited to Rome.
Lusitanians were not celts, their culture might have been influenced by the Celtic migrations to the Iberian Peninsula, but there is no consensus that they were celtic. They were a more ancient people that already inhabited the Peninsula prior to the Celtic migrations. Furthermore, there were still other Iberian tribes that fought against the Romans in the southern parts of Portugal and Spain, namely the Conii and the multiple Turdetani-like tribes of the region. Not to mention the different tribes in Northern Spain that fought against the Romans that were not Celtic in their nature, such as the Vascones. The decision to generally call the different tribes of Iberia as "Iberians" by the author of this video is completely adequate, as it serves to group these different peoples who fought against the Republic throughout two centuries in their own similar ways, whether through Guerrilla ambushes or more prolonged campaigns, such as those that occured during the Lusitanian Wars.
@@andrerodrigues9328 You cannot claim for a fact Lusitanians were not Celts. But you can absolutely claim they were not Iberians. Straight out of the bat you are presuming that the Celtic languages only arrived in Iberia with the Hallstatt migration. This is an outdated theory that has been thoroughly debunked by archeology (Celtic-associated cultural elements such as triskelions, torcs, hillforts, antennae swords, burial practices etc...) Are found in the Atlantic Bronze Age cultures, older than in Hallstatt itself. And linguistically the Celtic languages spoken in Western Europe, namely Iberia more isolated parts of Gaul, Ireland and more isolated parts of Britain, were Q-Celtic, that is an older, more archaic version of the P-Celtic spoken by Hallstatt. It is evidently clear that when the Iron Age Celtic migration from the Alps to Western Europe happened, the Western European native cultures were ALREADY CELTIC, culturally and linguistically. Including the Natives of the Iberian Peninsula. So how did Celtic first arrived then? Well, there are two main theories, one that claims it originated in the Atlantic seaboard of Europe, and the other that claims it was in Southern Gaul. Regardless, both of these suggest the Celtic languages were already spoken in Western Europe before Hallstatt. For the sake of argument let's analyse the first theory Barry H. Cunliffe postulates that it developed in the Atlantic seaboard as a comercial língua franca, this is supported by the shared material culture which undeniably indicates cultural continuum possibly via comerce. Where does Lusitanian fit in this equation? Well, we do not know for certain what the Lusitanian is, it is undeniably Indo-European (and thus not Iberian or even related to Iberian, or Basque) and very similar to an archaic form of Celtic and also closer to Italic. This has originated many theories, the one i find most credible is that when the Indo-Europeans arrived in the Iberian Peninsula, they brought with them the Proto-Italo-Celtic language. In Iberia, along the northern coastal areas, it evolved into Q-Celtic as a trade lingua franca, in the more isolated interior, the Lusitanians linguistic developed halted, and they retained a more archaic form that was closer to the original Proto-Italo-Celtic. This makes sense considering how the Lusitanians did retain far more traditionally Indo-European traits, such as an almost exclusively Pastoral economy, while the Celts became more Agrarian, and a more emphasis on the social importance of the Koryos. So can we say Lusitanians were Celtic? It's a matter of intrepretation. They were once the population that originated the Celts, but they themselves remained stagnant and didn't evolve alongside the others. They are Proto-Celtic. Interestingly enough, even the ancient writers were aware of this. Pliny the Elder claims that all the Celts of Hispania descend from the Lusitanians, whose land once occupied a much larger area.
The Gaul tribe that the Romans ran away from and then paid off as Rome burned down around 385 BC seemingly were only asked to distract the Romans by Syracuse. The people from the north seemed like big stronk badasses.
I've enjoyed the video, although here some more info about sardinians: - a good of chunk of the island was never completly pacified and thus known as "Barbaria" (=land of the barbarians), even when the Vandals invaded the island, they also failed to conquer inner part, and same goes on within byzantines rule. Quoting Strabo, centuries after the roman conquest of the island, some tribes of the interior would still wage war inland and even conduct activities on the sea, often raiding the coasts of Etruria - Romans did not just hate sardinians, they also hated the island itself and for good reasons, too many mountains, too many woods, too much malaria and too many locals willing to kill you at first sight, quoting Cicero, "nothing good comes out of Sardinia, everything is evil" - Despite being rich in metals and soil yield, in all of Roman history only two Roman colonies got ever founded in Sardinia, and both by Ceasar, unlike the near Corsica which instead got populated multiple times by veterans - During the empire, sardinians would be one the tree first choices of the miseno fleet, only surclassed by Egypt which had a far higher population - Fun fact, according to ancient sources the sardinians were also terrible slaves, being untrustworthy and killing their masters if they had the chance, their sight inspired fear and thus were also hard to sell on the market. - the Roman-sardinian wars quoted on the video are only the documented ones, which end around 100BC, as any document of titus post that date got lost, so most certainly the sardinians fought far more wars, as we also know another conflict from secondary sources lasted around ten years during the rule of augustus
"In the same corner of Germany, nearest to the open sea, dwell the Cimbri, a name mighty in history, though now they are only a little state. Widespread traces of their ancient fame may still be seen: huge encampments on both sides of the Rhine, by their enormous circuit, still give a measure of the mass and man-power of the nation and demonstrate the historical truth of that great exodus. Rome was in her six hundred and fortieth year when the alarm of the Cimbrian arms was first heard, in the consulship of Caecilius Metellus and Papirius Carbo. Reckoning from that year to the second consulship of the emperor Trajan, we get a total of about two hundred and ten years. Such is the time it is taking to conquer Germany. In this long period much punishment has been given and taken. Neither by the Samnites nor by the Carthaginians, not by Spain or Gaul, or even by the Parthians, have we had more lessons taught us. The freedom of Germany is capable of more energetic action than the Arsacid despotism. After all, what has the East to taunt us with, except the slaughter of Crassus? And it soon lost its own prince Pacorus and was humbled at the feet of Ventidius. But the Germans routed or captured Carbo, Cassius, Aurelius Scaurus, Servilius Cacpio, and Mallius Maximus, and robbed the Republic, almost at one stroke, of five consular armies. Even from Augustus they took Varus and his three legions. And we had to pay a high price for the defeats inflicted upon them by Gaius Marius in Italy, by Julius Caesar in Gaul, and by Drusus, Tiberius, and Germanicus in their own country. The boastful threats of Gaius Caesar ended in farce. After that came a lull, until the Germans took advantage of our dissensions and civil wars to storm the quarters of the legions and make a bid for possession of Gaul. This attempt ended in another defeat for them; but the more recent 'victories' claimed by our commanders have been little more than excuses for celebrating triumphs." Tacitus Germania The Battle of Arausio was the costliest defeat Rome had suffered since Cannae and, in fact, the losses and long-term consequences were far greater. In total 5 consular armies was defeated by the cimbri coalition. The war contributed greatly to the political career of Gaius Marius, whose consulships and political conflicts challenged many of the Roman Republic's political institutions and customs of the time. The Cimbrian threat, along with the Jugurthine War, allegedly inspired the putative Marian reforms of the Roman legions.
@@TominusMaximus Yes is well written. Is from the oxford translated book Germania written by Tacitus. From around 70 after christ. As a Norwegian. My english is far from that good😊 But know were to get sources👍
"They themselves, indeed, had not had intercourse with other peoples, and had traversed a great stretch of country, so that it could not be ascertained what people it was nor whence they had set out, thus to descend upon Gaul and Italy like a cloud. The most prevalent conjecture was that they were some of the German peoples which extended as far as the northern ocean, a conjecture based on their great stature, their light-blue eyes, and the fact that the Germans call robbers Cimbri" "Moreover, their courage and daring made them irresistible, and when they engaged in battle they came on with the swiftness and force of fire, so that no one could withstand their onset, but all who came in their way became their prey and booty, and even many large Roman armies, with their commanders, who had been stationed to protect Transalpine Gaul, were destroyed ingloriously; 9 indeed, p493 by their feeble resistance they were mainly instrumental in drawing the on-rushing Barbarians down upon Rome. For when the invaders had conquered those who opposed them, and had got abundance of booty, they determined not to settle themselves anywhere until they had destroyed Rome and ravaged Italy." " As for the Cimbri, their foot-soldiers advanced slowly from their defences, with a depth equal to their front, for each side of their formation had an extent of thirty furlongs; 7 and their horsemen, fifteen thousand strong, rode out in splendid style, with helmets made to resemble the maws of frightful wild beasts or the heads of strange animals, which, with their towering crests of feathers, made their wearers appear taller than they really were; they were also equipped with breastplates of iron, and carried gleaming white shields. For hurling, each man had two lances; and at close quarters they used large, heavy swords." "The Romans were favoured in the struggle, Sulla says, by the heat, and by the sun, which shone in the faces of the Cimbri. For the Barbarians were well able to endure cold, and had been brought up in shady and chilly regions, as I have said.25 They were therefore undone by the heat; they sweated profusely, breathed with difficulty, and were forced to hold their shields before their faces. For the battle was fought after the summer solstice, which falls, by Roman reckoning, three days before the new moon of the month now called August" Plutarch Life of Marius
Great work! This reminds me of playing "Caesar II and III" and excitedly seeing how the barbarians of each province would be portrayed. I'd love to see more videos, like one on "Early Republic" going into the different Italian enemies, and also a video on the Imperial era that could cover the Jewish Wars, Parthians, Arabians, Germanics etc. from that era.
Strabo was the first to comment on how long it took the Romans to conquer the Celtic Lusitanians. Bing summarizes it thusly: "According to the Roman historian Strabo, the Romans waged war against the Iberians for a long time, subjecting one group after another, until they finally got them all under control after about two hundred years or longer. On the other hand, the Romans conquered Gaul much more easily than they did the Iberians, defeating all the peoples who lived between the Rhenus and the Pyrenees Mountains in a relatively short period of time." (8 years from a single campaign) The sources are: "And yet the country north of the Tagus, Lusitania, is the greatest of the Iberian nations, and is the nation against which the Romans waged war for the longest times." Source: Book III Chapter 3 "And the Romans, since they carried on merely a piecemeal war against the Iberians, attacking each territory separately, spent some considerable time in acquiring dominion here, subjecting first one group and then another, until, after about two hundred years or longer, they got them all under control. But I return to my geographical description." Source: Book III Chapter 4 "Again, the Romans conquered these people much more easily than they did the Iberians; in fact, the Romans began earlier, and stopped later, carrying on war with the Iberians, but in the meantime defeated all these - I mean all the peoples who live between the Rhenus and the Pyrenees Mountains." Source: Book IV Chapter 4
@@thierryfromgwada9312 Gaul only took one Emperor's campaign of just 8 years to conquer by Julius Caesar. On the other hand Iberia took 200 years to conquer with multiple Emperors and multiple campaigns and side skirmishes. Gaul may have been richer and closer but it was also weaker. And there's no way you can say the Romans were not focused on Iberia when they focused on it for 200 years over the just 8 years that they needed to conquer all of Gaul.
@@jboss1073 Romans didn't take 200 years to conquer Iberia because it was so hard, but because it was not their main goal. They proceeded by little steps. How long it took for muslims to invade and conquer Spain ? They stayed there 400 years. They failed to invade France. The only time in history (after Romans), France has been occupated is under Nazi regime. Napoleon stayed 5 years in Spain, as long as than Hitler in France. France is more difficult to defend : in the middle of Europe, a low density of population for a large country, many neighborhoods, no mountains with difficult access like nothern spain, etc... So i can't understand what you want to prove.
@@thierryfromgwada9312 "Romans didn't take 200 years to conquer Iberia because it was so hard, but because it was not their main goal. They proceeded by little steps." According to you. But how do you know that? Sounds like a hypothesis to me. "How long it took for muslims to invade and conquer Spain ? They stayed there 400 years. They failed to invade France." Well, where the muslims stayed for 400 years there was hardly any Indo-European settlement. They only stayed 30 years in the northern half of Iberia where it was populated. France defeated them easily because they had already plenty to look after in Iberia and did not have the numbers to spread to France. It has nothing to do with France's power to fend off enemies.
@@jboss1073 You are funny ! You want to prove that the Spanish are courageous and hard to conquer, unlike the French. While history proves the opposite. The Muslims and Napoleon had no difficulty to invade Spain. They were nearby. If Rome was next to Spain, Caesar's army would have had no problem invading it, if he was interested. 400 years of foreign domination. This is enormous for a people who claim to be difficult to invade. France has never remained under foreign occupation for 400 years. France was occupied only once, it was 5 years under the Nazis. And again, French territory is easier to conquer than Spain. The English attacked France several times, but they never ruled the country. England was invaded and ruled by the Normans for centuries. The Spanish was ruled by a dictator (Franco) for decades. The Spanish never managed to drive it out. The French have never lived under a dictatorship.
A good video, but you missed some Samnite victories, such as the capture of Fregellae in 321 (actually 319), the capture of Plistica in 315 (actually 313), the recapture of Fregellae in 313 (actually 311), the defeat of Bubulcus Brutus near Talium in 311 (actually 309), the likely defeat of Marcius Rutilus in 310 (actually 308), the butchering of Rome's sailors near Nuceria Altaferna in 310 (actually 308), the defeats (plural) of Appius Claudius in 296 (before the arrival of Volumnius), the defeat of Regulus in 294, and the defeat of Fabius Gurges in 292 (before the arrival of Fabius Rullianus).
Transalpine Gauls not being a Threat? It should be higher, that one village makes Fort Boyard look like broken fence and it will most likely take 100 years before Romans subdue them
@@TominusMaximus Yes. And in this year i was in Saint Malo, which is the closest thing we get to that village. Its a pretty town in France. Used to be pirate center. Recommend you visit it. On the second thought, they also saved Rome once in the while
1- Carthago. 2- Hispania. It is impressive how hard was the conquer of Hispania for Romans. It took 2 centuries from 218BC to 19BC. It included epic and crucial battles for the history of Rome: 2nd Punic, Lusitanian, Roman Civil Wars, Siege of Numantia... And historical figures who had to fight in Hispania such as Scipio Aemilianus, Scipio Africanus, Julius Caesar, Pompey, Viriathus, Agrippa... until Augustus himself (something unusual) concluded the conquest in the hard and brutal Cantabrian Wars.
And nothing about Dacians? King Burebista actually inspired and financed some Illiryan revolts. Also under king Decebal Dacia fought two wars with Domitianus and Trajanus. The famous column of Trajanus was raised after.
I think you must be either murican, russian or hungarian because all of you avoid mentioning Dacia. Carpae, Boii, Getae, these are Dacian tribes that have not been even ever conquered by romans.
When i first watched this video i thought what a shitty and wrong video but then the next day i realized it's the Republic's enemies and now, after the 2nd video i watched this again and thought wow what a nice video this was :D LuL welldone mate.
Sardinians actually tried to choose their own masters. They sent an embassy to Carthage and rebelled during the Second Punic War, but they were defeated along with the Carthaginian troops that came to assist them, look up Hampsichora. Livy and Silius Italicus wrote about it. Said events took place right after the battle of Cannae, so they had some idea of what was happening in the Mediterranean. As for their reputation, it was pretty bad but the Romans said nothing along the lines of them being "retarded". Cicero famously dedicated most of his "Pro Scauro" oration to shit on them, since he was defending the governernor accused of stealing from their province and of murder, and he mocked them for their supposed Phoenician mixed with African origins, that according to him caused them to be liars and untrustworthy; on another note we know that Caesar's uncle Gaius Julius Caesar Strabo composed an oration to defend the Sardinians "Pro Sardis" and that Caesar recalled it and recited some passages of said oration from memory, so their reputation wasn't entirely negative across the Roman world. . As for the danger they posed, Strabo explicitly mentions the repeated attacks of the Sardinian pirates from the non romanized parts of the island on the Tuscan coast (Book 5 of Strabo's Geography), but still, nothing comparable to the Ligurian and Illyrian pirates probably. Cicero also said about a rich Sardinian who lent him money for his consulship campaign (Famea) that he like all Sardinians was only worthy to be a slave, when said Sardinian got angry with him for not supporting him in a court case.
What about King Juba of Numibia fighting against Caesar. Of course it was part of Roman civil war, but I just thought since you included Egypt when Cleopatra fought with Antonius
As a Roman I want to put an honor whenever I can to the real Celts, not the filthy HailsGails either the Celtiberi, the real one that seek refugee under Roman protectorate in Ireland, then were slaughtered after by the Barbaric invasions…. Cesare loved you so do I, Benito once started the new E,pire wanted to remember you aswell using the Celtic Cross so do I, Love you my brother I’m sure you’re up there in the Campi Elisi smiling at us Italics, your brothers ❤
Its quite funny because Ummayads, Almohads, Almoravids and Napoleon had the same bad time in Spain, the geography is so fucked up that locals fight more for their villages than for a country as a whole, there is no capital to conquer at all but a lot of villagers fighting their own local war.
If Octavius died in Illyricum ... their score will be much much higher... (even though, he had at least 2 near death battle. Illyricum is def not a push over at all)
Carthage and Samnium really had the best chances to either severely limit or outright annex Roman imperialism, but credit to the Iberians and Gauls too. It seems Western Europe, including the migrating Cimbri, were tougher in general than Eastern Europe. It's not until the Goths and Sassanids that the East becomes truly treacherous, while the northern/western flanks and Rhine frontier fortifications were hot for centuries.
well Mithridates tried his best but tbf Rome striked the East when it was at its weakest after centuries of infighting after the collapse of the Persian and the hellenistic empire
Ciceron wrote about sardinian beign the worst slaves because at the first possibility they would kill their masters, and core sardinian lands were never controlled by romans
I think that Sicily should be considered instead of only Syracuse, and should be higher in the ranking, since two of the 3 servile revolts originated in Sicily.
The Roman conquest of Thrace was a gradual process that occurred over several centuries, not a single campaign. I think it should have been higher on the list.
But didn't the Gauls in cisalpine Gaul come from transalpine Gaul rather recently (6th century BC) before Rome started to rise and eventually invaded ? It's difficult to separate them, as they weren't there for that long and came from other Gaulish tribes. Unless I'm wrong about something, which is possible.
they actually stayed in Northern Italy for quite a while but yea they directly comes from Transalpine gaul and so were the Galatians actually, but tis easy to separate them because they were divided as tribes, Transalpine gaul was partly unified thanks to Vercingetorix and Cisalpine gaul never really had Transalpine gaul for support when they wreck Rome
@@Freedmoon44 One thing I realized which strengthens what I said, is that the Gaulist tribe that sacked Rome, led by Brennus, actually immigrated in Cisalpine Gaul just a few years before that attack. It was the same generation that traveled from translapine gaul and that sacked Rome. So it's clearly difficult to separate them from their birthplace.
I have to criticize Numidia: -Jugurtha wanted only to avoid conflict because he knew he couldn’t win. He bribed senators but then killed roman merchants. -why didn’t you point out that numidia was still free under Juba 1 and that it was conquered by Caesar
You forgot the kingdom of Dacia! Burebista's kingdom founded the first Dacian state created by the union of the Geto-Dacian tribes and ruled by Burebista between 82 BC. and 44 BC Securing its borders, Burebista became involved in the civil war between Caesar and Pompey, helping Pompey. Caesar, victorious, organized an expedition to punish Burebista, but it was interrupted by Caesar's death in 44 BC. BC, shortly followed by the death of Burebista. In this context comes to power Decebalus (87-106 AD) He restores the unity of the Dacian state, on a smaller territory than Burebista's state, but more centralized and powerful. As early as 87, he had to repel the attacks of the Romans, first at Turnu Roșu, where he defeated a Roman army led by Cornelius Fuscus at Tapae. In 88, a Roman army under Tettius Julianus attacked again through the Banat, Decebalus making a peace with Domitian in 89 that made him a client of Rome. The decisive confrontation took place in 101-102 when the Roman army, led by Emperor Trajan, after extensive preparations, attacked Dacia, Decebal being forced to conclude a crushing peace. From here to the defeat of May 105-106 was only a step, facilitated by the construction of the bridge over the Danube at Drobeta by Apollodorus of Damascus The Dacian state being occupied, the Dacian tribes from the north (Free Dacians) remained with a gentile organization , sometimes allying with the Carpi to raid the Roman province of Dacia. Earlier the emperor Domitian is forced to accept the payment of an annual tribute to the Dacians. Thus Rome paid tribute to Dacia for over a decade.
YO GUYS! Do not worry. It is the Enemies of the ROMAN REPUBLIC! Not the Roman Empire! I can hardly insert Dacians and Persians in that timeline. All the other nations will be part of my second video about the Roman Empire, worry not.
first i think
You have escaped my scrutiny.
(The Speculatores would have been knocking at your door)
For the transalpin Gaul, you forget Brennos sack of Rome in -390 (the last one until the sack in 410 by the goths).
@@robert-surcouf because those were cisalpine gauls
weeeellllll you could claim, that the bellum sociale kinda ended the republic with their effects. this war destroyed the economy of their allied cities. After all the riot of the slaves were often not slaves, but these farmers and citizen of these cities in Italy, who still hated Rome, because they lost their possession in this bloody conflict.
The endeffect was a massive boom of population in Rome in these times of the old republic. In these times a lot of these poor people were easily influenced by speakers like Cicero, but easily rallied by people like Catalina and Clodius.
This instability explained the destruction of the republic by a "popular" leader like Pompeius, Caesar, Antonius and later Octavian.
the Italian migrant mob, awarded with citizenship and poverty after a war, who flocked into the Roman republic based on a city structure, made the Roman republic fall.
creating the Roman civilwar should be rewarded with some points. (same for Gaul) These effects were earned with suffering by these "barbarous" enemies under the Barbary of Rome.
I'm surprised the Roman Republic didn't get the number 1 spot.
External enemies only.
lol
Gotta love how the Germans never get the joke.
"Brothers and sisters are natural enemies, like Carthaginians and Romans. Or Gauls and Romans. Or Parthians and Romans. Or Romans and other Romans. Jupiter damned Romans - THEY RUINED ROME!"
@@pastramiandryeGet over Rome it's only been 1,964 years since its collapse
I think you should've included Parthia considering Parthia and the Romans did clash during the Republican era, and it ended in disaster for the Romans
Human sacrifice would have merely showed up earlier. More Capitalistic too.
@@semi-useful5178 what?
Agreed, Parthian campaign killed Crassus. They never threatened Rome itself and Rome ultimately conquered as much as it wanted, but they would have fit in nicely around the Seleucids.
And sassanids
@@parsarustami774its about enemies of roman republic.
“I was not sent to Athens to learn it’s history, but to subdue it.” Is a cold ass line.
Sauce?
@@SaltandpepperbackGorrilamy left butt cheek
Lucius Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus@@SaltandpepperbackGorrila
*its
Savage Romans not caring about civilizations
On the Iberians fanaticism, when the last tribes were conquered by Agrippa he had some of the cantabri and astures crucified, the madlads happily sung war chants, as they prefered to die as free man than to live as roman slaves. Mass suicide of the defeated tribes was not uncommon.
Shame they are so neglected.
Never knew that Iberian tribes were so unfathomly based.
maybe the iberian wars should get at least a dedicated video@@TominusMaximus
@@Ironpancakemoose Best part? Those celts didn't really exactly lose. Romans decided to cool things out and Astures and Cantabros (north-nortwest of the Peninsula) accepted it. They didn't get romanized until the Visigoths came, and never got exactly the full package. Also, Astur cavalry changed how the war worked for Romans for ever, but that's another long story.
Força Portugal
Honnestly, we Iberians are so much underrared. We fought the Romans for 200 years.
Nor Carthage, nor Gaul, nor Macedone have done that
We may disagree about the exact ranking, but I think we can all agree that Carthago delenda est !
Carthage is the best beats the rest. What would Rome be with a Carthage? It would just be another savage Italian city state. Everything great about Rome they learned from Carthage, or from the Greeks, who learned it from the Phoenicians.
Such a barbaric act
Sometimes it make me consider why? Why did they destroy a trade city that was a great asset.
@@adrianafamilymember6427 it competed with their own trade, and since Hannibal crossed the Alps the idea of Carthage raising again terrified them.
@@adrianafamilymember6427 Garden variety revenge I guess, because they rebuilt it a century later.
200 years to conquer Iberia. Freaking insane. Whether it's the Romans in Numancia, the Arabs in Asturias, or Napoleon in Spain, Iberia is a royal pain in the ass to occupy.
Even Hitler himself said its impossible to win a defensive war against spaniards
Rome needed 200 years to subdue the mountain tribes in Asturias, and the Califate did not conquer it at all
@@LORDFERROK100exactly
Enemies of the Empire next?
Number 1: Romans. There's nothing Romans hate more than other Romans who happen to be closer to the seat of power than they are.
The fact that Rome had to cheat to defeat Iberians and overcome their guerrilla tactics and terrain knowledge superiority makes me proud to be an Iberian xD
An Ancient Afghanistan
yeah then went for round 2 during the napoleonic wars lol
@@skittlesnakesIberia is a European Afghanistan,Cant wait to see what will happen when Vladimir goes there.
Funny that Iberians were always regarded as strong people like the Greeks and shaped the world in their own way and now we struggle to pay rent. 😂
@@PlaceholderAccount-l the fuck you mean when vladimir goes there, russia would literally never reach iberia 💀
You could argue that the iberians managed to inflict more damage than most on the list. The endless wars with no spoils ruined the roman citzen soldiers. A soldier goes of to war, and his farm sufferes in his abscence, the if he even return, he brings nothing but scars and stories. In the end his family is forced to sell the farm, and try their luck in Rome. Slowly but surely this undermines the entire basis for the republican armies.
😂
Iberia was one of the oldest examples of how brutal and effective guerrila warfare can be. In the end, they lost because they betrayed themselves and an inside job helped the romans. The atrition romans suffered in iberia is often underrated.
The tribe that sacked Rome actually came from Transalpine Gaul just a few years earlier, and had barely settled in Cisalpine Gaul.
The barbarian invasions were irrilevant because they as a consequence and not as a cause of the fall of the empire. The Roman army at it height was unbeatable. The Romans Lost battles but Always won the war as happened with carthage which was their most powerful enemy
Number 1: Rome
Important thing to remember is that if Rome is weak at the time the enemies seem stronger and vice versa, Dacia as an enemy was much more organised, better equipped, fortified etc more formidable than Cisalpine Gaul but at the point they clashed was the Empire at its strongest with its full might on the aggressive whereas those gauls were an existential threat to early Rome's survival, but I'm not sure that makes them a more powerful enemy
Looking forward to the next video
Which makes any adversary of Caeser or Pompey look weak, while actually, maybe those two were just too overpowered.
@@xenotyposI don’t think so , Pompey had great feats in his bags ( defeated the Illyrian pirates that for centuries create a mess of the Mediterranean so much that they almost risk famine in Rome with the missing delivery from Egypt for food …
Also he fight and wins many other tribes in Spain and North Africa and pacified the eastern of the republic ..
As Julio Caesar he conquered Gauls , pacified the Celtic/Germans tribe at the border more than once probably three or four times during his career and as well conquered Egypt and pacified eastern empire again + defeated the other seasoned warriors of the internal enemies of the empire …
Now the main point I want to make is they have the qualifications full grades but dacians , some German tribes and Parthian were extreme difficult to deal with and why ?
Both of those enemies did and had the same problem :
-1 tendency to never fully commit on big campaign battle but to ambush
All of them were at the border of the empire , supply line longer and more hard to maintain (Parthian especially).
Plus their method of war (as well as the equipment used greatly differ from the more common used in most of Europe ..)
But don’t forget that Caesar lost many battles and Pompey were utterly defeated by Caesar only for miscommunication between their ranks of the army and he didn’t event try to go look by himself to see if it was true …
The real champ of Roman history for my are mainly :
- scipione to defeat Hannibal and literally humiliated other enemies in Spain , Greek and turkey
-Agrippa , for him august gain the power of the senate and he defeated all the tribes in Germany ip all the way to the nord pushing the border
-Germanicus another extremely strong generals from the empire as well as Trajan
The concept of the Gauls being a true threat though is a little murky, as most of what we know about the conflict is from the Roman side, Caesar particularly. And he had a vested interest in making them seem like the WORST thing possible for political reasons (he's the guy who beat the worst thing possible). The potential might have been there if the Gauls united, but I'm not sure they were really a huge threat to Rome at that point. Caesar got involved in Gaul due to all the infighting going on at the time. He actually helped unite most of Gaul, against him, lol.
This is exactly what I thought. Rome whilst facing early enemies like Carthage and Epirus wasn't the military machine that they were when facing later opponents like Pontus, Seleucids, Egypt, Gauls, etc.
This is just considering the military side of Rome, let's not forget that as Rome defeated its early enemies it also gained economic strength and resources to fund better and larger armies and also had centuries of experience to draw from.
Wish the Carthaginian culture survived within Rome. But well, both remembered through ages.
To some degree it did, one Roman empereror Septimius Severus even spoke the Punic language as a first lanuage.
A lot of North African Berber/Amazigh words actually come from punic. In terms of any remains or ruins, they don't exist because when Carthage was rebuilt it was sacked by the Arab invaders in the 7th/8th century and completely destroyed.@@lennartherix6872
Guess the Etruscans used internet explorer as a source of information on real time events
War with carthage was so fun they did it 3 times.
As a Portuguese, we study a lot the story of Viriathus. We also study that the Iberians were in the southeast of the peninsula, the celts on the northwest (including the Lusitanians, which the portuguese see their ancestors) and that the middle was a mix of the both groups called Celtiberians.
I took liberty to simplify things. Overall for the Roman those tribes were all the same.
@@TominusMaximus totally get it. Loved the video all the same. I was just adding info, not criticizing;)
There is still some debate as to whether the Lusitani were celts or not. Some say yes, some think they were their own people like the basque but who were strongly influenced by the celts and so became celtic in culture.
@@mbern4530 There is no debate. The Lusitani called themselves Celts in their own tombstones, votive altars and personal pottery items like pots and combs. You can't fast-forward 2,000 years and take away the name of a people just because of some linguistic excuse given by modern academics. 2,000 years ago the Lusitanians called themselves Celts in their personal names. Herodotus even referred to these Celts when he said the Celts lived "beyond the Pillars of Hercules" - meaning westward of the Strait of Gibraltar. It is not morally correct to come up with modern-theories through which we could therefore remove the Lusitanians from being Celts when they used the literal name "Celts" for their literal personal last names (Celti, Celtiati, Celtici, Celtigun, etc). "Lusitanian" is an exonym. They did not call themselves "Ambatus Lusitani" in their personal names, but instead "Ambatus Celti". Once again, the endonym of the Lusitani was Celti. So there cannot be a debate of whether they were "Celts" when that was many variants of their personal names.
As to whether they spoke Celtic, Wodtko said "it is hard to find anything in Lusitanian which isn't Celtic". Also remember just because they wrote P doesn't mean they pronounced P - most of the P-words found are also found in B-variants, showing it was probably not pronounced P. Celtic languages do not have initial P-sound. The rule is not "Celtic languages do not have initial P-letter". It's about the sound. And the words found with initial-P in Lusitanian are mostly also found with a variant using an initial-B. So the claim that initial-P in Lusitanian necessarily sounded like /p/ is actually very weak and contradicted by the evidence. There is no secure evidence that Lusitanian actually had an initial /p/ sound.
@@TominusMaximus
More or less. Even Ephorus who simplified so much to say "in the West live the Celts (and no one else)" in his purposefully-simplified model of the most populous peoples of the four corners of the world, still differentiated between the Celts and the Iberians in Iberia - and many other authors were also careful enough to identify several different ethnicities in Iberia, usually with the Celts separated from the Iberians:
"It is sometimes suggested (Chapman 1992) that the ancients used the term "Celt" as a vague term for western barbarians, rather as the Byzantines, remembering their ancient history, referred to the western Crusaders as Keltoi, or as the British referred to the Germans as "the Hun" during World War I (Sims-Williams 2012a, 33). There is very little evidence for such a vague usage of "Celt". The locus classicus is Ephorus in the fourth century BC. In an astronomical context, Ephorus assigned the four points of the compass schematically to Indians, Ethiopians, Celts and Scythians. Since no Greek can have been unaware that Persians, Egyptians and others also inhabited the east and south, it follows that it cannot be assumed that Ephorus was only aware of Celts in the west. In fact, in another context, Ephorus did distinguish between Celts and Iberians. A century earlier, Herodotus had already contrasted the Cynetes (in Portugal) with the Celts, while Herodorus of Heraclea distinguished between the Kelkianoi (Keltianoi?) and five other Hispanic peoples, including the Cynetes. Other early Greek writers, including Timagetus, Timaeus and Apollonius of Rhodes, continued to refer to the Celts as a distinct people (see further Sims-Williams 2016; 2017a). Among the Romans, Varro (116-27 BC), for instance, named four peoples besides the Celtae who settled in Hispania (Pliny, Natural History 3.1.8). So "Celt" was not normally a vague term like our "oriental".
The source for this is the paper Sims-Williams, Patrick. An Alternative to 'Celtic from the East' and 'Celtic from the West', 2020.
I love it. But you forgot Parthia and also the Britons (Julius Caesar invaded Brittannia in 55 and 54 BCE). And also you forgot the Germans (who invaded Gaul and clashed with Caesar), the Helvetians, the Cilician pirates, Bythinia (aided by Hannibal, defeated a Roman flotilla), Armenia (Tigranes), Cyrenaica (like Pergamon passed to Rome, but in 96 BCE), Corsica (you mentioned it, but didn't tell about the conquest and occupation and how easy it was), the Jewish Hasmonean Kingdom and the Balearic Islands.
This is the republic not empire
@@digiorno1142 When Caesar invaded Britannia it was during the republic and he left with his tail between his legs failing to get a foothold.
S tier : Plague
A tier : Plague
B tier : Plague
C tier : Persians
D tier : Hannibal
F tier : Uncivilized Barbarians
E Tier : Epirus and other greeks
We really didn't have much to work with yet we still reached latium
@@Hypogeal-Foundation greeks count as uncivilized barbarians. Except the submissive twinks. Those make admirable wives. Go check out the unbiased history of Rome. It does not dissapoint ;)
If we take all of Roman history (753 BC to 1453 AD)
S tier: Roman Civil War, Plague
A tier: Plague, RCW
B tier: Sassanids, Carthage, Arabs, Turks, Bulgars
C tier: Germanic tribes, Gauls, all other steppe nomads,
D tier: Greeks, Numidians
@@MS-io6kl you forgot the god of SS tier:
Honorius.
the F tiers literally destroyed rome
If I have to guess:
5. Pontus
4. Iberians
3. Cisalpine Gauls
2. Italics
1. Carthage
You can just hear his rage when he was talking about the Cisalpine Guals
Can't blame him tbh
VAE VICTIS
Still today they annoy us in the south because they "are not like us and we steal their money". Some things never change i guess
Rank the enemies of the Byzantines so i can see where you rank Bulgaria 😊
Nice video idea ahah
I'd pull the Carthaginian will to fight down, or at least not relate it with the third Punic war. They weren´t fanatically defending, they knew a genocide was coming.
Fanatically defending when genocide is coming is still fanatical defending man.
Some of the wording on the rankings made me laugh, gave a chuckle, like the Antony Simping Roman Land away bit.
I wonder how much higher the Etruscans would've ranked if they timed their betrayals a little better?
For certain had they marched with Hannibal when he arrived, they might've won! If only the Etruscan's response time wasn't so anemic...
Nice to know you are still alive.
As a Portuguese brings me joy to see someone giving credit to the Iberians and Portugal being Lusitania the homeland of Viriathus even more, it´s just sad they rather speak about Germania, Britannia and Gaul, while Gaul being about the same size of Iberia and took them less than a decade to be conquered while Iberia took more than 200 years, but this land is overlooked thru all history, even if we are home of the longest conflict in history the "Reconquista" which lasted around 800 years, thanks alot, mate!
Because conquest of Iberia were mostly skirmishes. Gauls-B. of Alesia. Germania-Teoutoburg forest. Carthage-Zama etc. But Iberia is just this strange attack and retreat pattern, no decisive battles. It is difficult to pass that on someone. The conflict is difficult to understand.
@@TominusMaximus indeed but for that very reason it should be more videos simplifying this conflict many people know Romans took 200 years to conquer but they dont how or why and I think you forgot to mention but Iberians would raid roman towns in North Africa too and its also remarkable that during the Cimbrii Wars, the germanics defeated Rome many times and they were stopped and defeated on Hispânia by a coalition of Iberians, and most of the roman equipment was copied from Iberia, in their minds Iberians were one of the best military speaking as it this land is considered Rome's Vietnam and Napoleons also.
Iberian warfare hasn't changed thru history which is why is difficult to conquer, guerrilla warfare with skirmishes about charging and retreating, ambushing and general population being very hostile to invaders
the amount of people in the comments who didn't read the "roman republic" in the title is crazy lol
I thought about putting the dates (509 BC - 27BC) in the thumbnail but I would probably still get the "where Dacia" comments.
The ADHD general is the best description of Pyrrhus
Wow really educational and well done video I am Italian and I'm so proud of my antecessors. Can't wait for the sequel!!
Your ancestors changed the course of European and world history. Without Rome, much of Europe and the rest of the world would be much more fractured and tribalistic. The age of European discovery across the Atlantic may never had happened.
We gotta give recognition to the Gauls. They were not united, yet they decided to abandon their hostilities and differences to join forces against a common for: Rome. Even if they lost, these guys had balls of steel.
This is why I'm proud of living in their lands. I know that probably speaking of Gauls in modern Lombardy is exaggerated, since many centuries passed and many peoples migrated and so on, but still probably a good chunk of our genetics comes from them :) that's cool! Love how the Celts never lost their hope of getting rid of a foreign invasor.
They had balls of Gaul.
It's funny cause it rhymes. Laugh. LAUGH.
@@archived2714
LMAO
Gauls, led by Brennus sacked Rome in 390 B.C., after defeating Roman legions in the Battle of Allia.
Thanks for the subtitles. Not a lot of youtubers go through that effort!
Yeah. My accent might not understandable for everyone.
Really glad you're still alive and not forcedly enlisted to fight in a random Russo-Ukranian war on the east
You forgot to mention the most irritating enemies that Rome had ever encountered in 50 BC, a village of indomitable Gauls in Armorica that still hold out against it's legions and makes the life of the surrounding garrisons of Compendium, Aquarium, Laudanum and Totorum not easy at all. The short mustached one and the fat one also occasionally causes mayhem whenever they travel into other Roman provinces (do NOT call the fat one fat or you can be sure that he'll give a good beating to those Romans).
OBELIX IS NOT FAT!
When the Celtiberians were defeated, they sometimes ingested yew, a fatal poison that made their lips curl into a smile, which menaced the Roman soldiers beyond the grave.
There are accounts by Cesar himself describing this!
It actually took Julius Caesar 8 years (not 2) to submit the gallic tribes. And you didn't even mention Ambiorix, who put up a good fight as well. I would put them way higher on the list.
Hood point
*Rome has had so many Civil Wars, I'd argue the Roman Senate, Emperors and Legions themselves were the greatest threats to Rome itself across its run as a Kingdom, Republic, and Empire.*
I really liked this video! I personally would have given the Transalpine Gauls some extra points for Ambiorix. With one tribe he managed to defeat an entire legion and five cohorts. He did this by first negotiating with the Romans and then stabbing them in the back. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
The use of the Latin passive gerund makes my brain happy. It doesn't exist in English outside of a few words: "I'm Amanda. That means beloved." "Yes, it does. Literally.", people take massive liberties in translating them: Carthago delenda est is actually "Carthage is that which is to be destroyed."
I think the Romans had no choice but to adapt to war so well, that they started to enjoy fighting.
Macedonians epirotes pontus Seleucid Ptolemies Crete Cyprus all were also Greeks
Different enough from Greeks, in terms of culture and threat
Crazy the Cimbri mass suicided to avoid slavery. They had hurt Rome pretty bad at that point so likely their punishment would have been very severe.
real
(1204 never forget)
Where is Armenia ? Great Armenia was one of the countries that Rome feared the most, as Ciceron said : « Tigrane (his King) made the Roman republic tremble by the promesse of his armies ».
😂name one battle the armenians won against the romans
Next episode
@@wankawanka3053 Battle of Protopachium 89 BC
19. Cyprus - 1:18
18. Crete, Thrace, Pergamon, Galatia - 1:55
17. Sardinians - 4:40
16. Egypt - 5:42
15. Syracuse - 7:20
14. Numidia - 8:08
13. The Seleucid Empire - 9:47
12. The Illyrians - 11:11
11. Transalpine Gauls - 12:14
10. Greece - 13:34
9. The Etruscans - 15:50
8. Cimbrians - 17:51
7. Macedon - 19:20
6. Taras amd Epirus - 21:06
5. Pontus - 22:43
4. Iberia - 24:12
3. Volsci, Latins, Samnites, Brutii, Sabines and other Italic tribes - 26:35
2. Cisalpine Gauls 28:06
1. Carthage - 29:42
Man if only Carthage won. Now that is our Harambe
@@falconeshield Carthaginians sacrificed children
The Carthaginians are said to be descendants of Troy who escaped after the fall of Troy. Basically, they had a similar culture as Greeks and Greeks too sacrificed humans. 😂😂😂
@@herearewe Actually no, the Aneid is the story that follows the descendants of Troy immediately following its fall. They pass THROUGH Carthage as it was a pre-existing civilization, its queen Dido falls in love with the Trojan protagonist and curses him for forsaking her.
Carthage was a Phoenician, a Levantine Canaanite people, colony. It was one of the many places Phoenician and Israelite peoples fled to when the Assyrians invaded the region. They worshipped the Canaanite gods and sacrificed people (including children) following Semitic rituals, not Greek.
@@hereareweCarthage where apart of the Phoenician Canaanite semetic people. Cannite being levant natufians + ancient iranic people. Haplgroup j1 and j2. Pretty much what Palestinians and Lebanon Arabs are today
Beautiful and interesting, but you forgot in your presentation of the Dacians from the north of the Danube river.
Great Roman emperors paid tribute to the Dacians led by Burebista or Decebal. And even if Rome conquered the capital of Dacia, Sarmisegetusa, under the great emperor Trajan, they only managed to occupy 14% of the Dacian territory. After a while, they gave up the province, retreating south of the Danube (Aureliana retreat).
Frumos si interesant, dar ai uitat in prezentarea ta de daci de la nord de fluviul Dunărea.
Mari imparati romani au platit tribut dacilor condusi de Burebista sau Decebal. Si chiar daca Roma a cucerit capitala Daciei, Sarmisegetusa, sub marele imparat Traian, ei nu au reusit sa ocupe decat 14% din teritoriul dac. Mai mult după un timp au renuntat la provincie retragandu-se la sud de Dunare (retragerea Aureliana).
This is pure gold, nice video, I just wonder if you want to make a second part, now with the late empire time, to see Parthians, Huns, Sassanids, Armenians, Anglo-Saxon, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Vandals, Alamanni, etc.
Well, thanks for the video, I will watch it several times, love you man (No Homo)
Sure I am definitely gonna do the second prt.
Neither the Angles nor the Saxons (if there ever were such defined groups) were veritable threats to Rome to be compared to these other peoples. They would raid along the "Saxon Shore" in Britain and some of Northern Gaul, but by the time they escalated their attacks in Britain Rome had already pulled out of there.
There were NO Iberians in any of the territory marked in this map. All the battles, wars, territory and events mentioned in the "Iberian" chapter was refered to the Celtic peoples of Hispania.
The Iberians, the actual tribal group called "Iberians", were easily conquered, the Carthaginians conquered them and then then the Romans took their land afterwards and then there was a couple of rebellions that were put down relatively easily.
It was the Celts who resisted for 200 years.
It was the Celtiberians (CELTIC, not Iberian, they merely used the Iberian alphabet just like the Gauls used the Greek one) who rebelled twice and held the grueling sige of Numantia.
It was the Lusitanians (CELTIC, NOT IBERIAN), who under Viriatus actually defeated the Romans in the battlefield multiple times and forced favourable peace treaties with Rome.
The Gallaeci, Cantabri and Astures, the last independent tribes in the mountainous North of the Peninsula, who fought to the last man and had the women kill their children and themselves to avoid slavery, were also CELTS, and not Iberians.
There were also other tribes in the peninsula that were neither Celtic or Iberian, such as the Aquitani and the Turdetani. The Turdetani also only rebelled unsucesfully once, and the Aquitani immediately subbmited to Rome.
Lusitanians were not celts, their culture might have been influenced by the Celtic migrations to the Iberian Peninsula, but there is no consensus that they were celtic. They were a more ancient people that already inhabited the Peninsula prior to the Celtic migrations.
Furthermore, there were still other Iberian tribes that fought against the Romans in the southern parts of Portugal and Spain, namely the Conii and the multiple Turdetani-like tribes of the region. Not to mention the different tribes in Northern Spain that fought against the Romans that were not Celtic in their nature, such as the Vascones.
The decision to generally call the different tribes of Iberia as "Iberians" by the author of this video is completely adequate, as it serves to group these different peoples who fought against the Republic throughout two centuries in their own similar ways, whether through Guerrilla ambushes or more prolonged campaigns, such as those that occured during the Lusitanian Wars.
@@andrerodrigues9328
You cannot claim for a fact Lusitanians were not Celts. But you can absolutely claim they were not Iberians.
Straight out of the bat you are presuming that the Celtic languages only arrived in Iberia with the Hallstatt migration. This is an outdated theory that has been thoroughly debunked by archeology (Celtic-associated cultural elements such as triskelions, torcs, hillforts, antennae swords, burial practices etc...) Are found in the Atlantic Bronze Age cultures, older than in Hallstatt itself. And linguistically the Celtic languages spoken in Western Europe, namely Iberia more isolated parts of Gaul, Ireland and more isolated parts of Britain, were Q-Celtic, that is an older, more archaic version of the P-Celtic spoken by Hallstatt. It is evidently clear that when the Iron Age Celtic migration from the Alps to Western Europe happened, the Western European native cultures were ALREADY CELTIC, culturally and linguistically. Including the Natives of the Iberian Peninsula.
So how did Celtic first arrived then? Well, there are two main theories, one that claims it originated in the Atlantic seaboard of Europe, and the other that claims it was in Southern Gaul. Regardless, both of these suggest the Celtic languages were already spoken in Western Europe before Hallstatt.
For the sake of argument let's analyse the first theory Barry H. Cunliffe postulates that it developed in the Atlantic seaboard as a comercial língua franca, this is supported by the shared material culture which undeniably indicates cultural continuum possibly via comerce.
Where does Lusitanian fit in this equation?
Well, we do not know for certain what the Lusitanian is, it is undeniably Indo-European (and thus not Iberian or even related to Iberian, or Basque) and very similar to an archaic form of Celtic and also closer to Italic.
This has originated many theories, the one i find most credible is that when the Indo-Europeans arrived in the Iberian Peninsula, they brought with them the Proto-Italo-Celtic language.
In Iberia, along the northern coastal areas, it evolved into Q-Celtic as a trade lingua franca, in the more isolated interior, the Lusitanians linguistic developed halted, and they retained a more archaic form that was closer to the original Proto-Italo-Celtic. This makes sense considering how the Lusitanians did retain far more traditionally Indo-European traits, such as an almost exclusively Pastoral economy, while the Celts became more Agrarian, and a more emphasis on the social importance of the Koryos.
So can we say Lusitanians were Celtic? It's a matter of intrepretation. They were once the population that originated the Celts, but they themselves remained stagnant and didn't evolve alongside the others. They are Proto-Celtic.
Interestingly enough, even the ancient writers were aware of this. Pliny the Elder claims that all the Celts of Hispania descend from the Lusitanians, whose land once occupied a much larger area.
Yes in from Cantabria and i dont understand why mix it when the difference between celts and iberos was so remarkable
Yeah! We were the Second greatest enemy of Rome🗿
Nah, a Roman is probably your ancestral Father.
@@TJ-ml8tt Unlikely. Romans weren't so many and they mixed up with locals.
#1: Julius Caesar
#2: Sulla
Don't forget Augustus.
If it weren't for Sulla than Ceaser, Antony, and Augustus would likely have never done any of the shit they did. I'd put him at number one
actually other way around not that marius all that nice and chummy either.
The Gaul tribe that the Romans ran away from and then paid off as Rome burned down around 385 BC seemingly were only asked to distract the Romans by Syracuse. The people from the north seemed like big stronk badasses.
I was going through an entire fucking day without thinking about the Roman Empire, then this thing appears in my feed.
LETS GO CARTHAGE LETS GO. LETS GO CARTHAGE LETS GO.
I've enjoyed the video, although here some more info about sardinians:
- a good of chunk of the island was never completly pacified and thus known as "Barbaria" (=land of the barbarians), even when the Vandals invaded the island, they also failed to conquer inner part, and same goes on within byzantines rule. Quoting Strabo, centuries after the roman conquest of the island, some tribes of the interior would still wage war inland and even conduct activities on the sea, often raiding the coasts of Etruria
- Romans did not just hate sardinians, they also hated the island itself and for good reasons, too many mountains, too many woods, too much malaria and too many locals willing to kill you at first sight, quoting Cicero, "nothing good comes out of Sardinia, everything is evil"
- Despite being rich in metals and soil yield, in all of Roman history only two Roman colonies got ever founded in Sardinia, and both by Ceasar, unlike the near Corsica which instead got populated multiple times by veterans
- During the empire, sardinians would be one the tree first choices of the miseno fleet, only surclassed by Egypt which had a far higher population
- Fun fact, according to ancient sources the sardinians were also terrible slaves, being untrustworthy and killing their masters if they had the chance, their sight inspired fear and thus were also hard to sell on the market.
- the Roman-sardinian wars quoted on the video are only the documented ones, which end around 100BC, as any document of titus post that date got lost, so most certainly the sardinians fought far more wars, as we also know another conflict from secondary sources lasted around ten years during the rule of augustus
I would have added Jerusalem as an enemy. Rome had 3 big rebellions.
"In the same corner of Germany, nearest to the open sea, dwell the Cimbri, a name mighty in history, though now they are only a little state. Widespread traces of their ancient fame may still be seen: huge encampments on both sides of the Rhine, by their enormous circuit, still give a measure of the mass and man-power of the nation and demonstrate the historical truth of that great exodus.
Rome was in her six hundred and fortieth year when the alarm of the Cimbrian arms was first heard, in the consulship of Caecilius Metellus and Papirius Carbo. Reckoning from that year to the second consulship of the emperor Trajan, we get a total of about two hundred and ten years. Such is the time it is taking to conquer Germany. In this long period much punishment has been given and taken. Neither by the Samnites nor by the Carthaginians, not by Spain or Gaul, or even by the Parthians, have we had more lessons taught us. The freedom of Germany is capable of more energetic action than the Arsacid despotism. After all, what has the East to taunt us with, except the slaughter of Crassus? And it soon lost its own prince Pacorus and was humbled at the feet of Ventidius. But the Germans routed or captured Carbo, Cassius, Aurelius Scaurus, Servilius Cacpio, and Mallius Maximus, and robbed the Republic, almost at one stroke, of five consular armies. Even from Augustus they took Varus and his three legions. And we had to pay a high price for the defeats inflicted upon them by Gaius Marius in Italy, by Julius Caesar in Gaul, and by Drusus, Tiberius, and Germanicus in their own country. The boastful threats of Gaius Caesar ended in farce. After that came a lull, until the Germans took advantage of our dissensions and civil wars to storm the quarters of the legions and make a bid for possession of Gaul. This attempt ended in another defeat for them; but the more recent 'victories' claimed by our commanders have been little more than excuses for celebrating triumphs."
Tacitus Germania
The Battle of Arausio was the costliest defeat Rome had suffered since Cannae and, in fact, the losses and long-term consequences were far greater.
In total 5 consular armies was defeated by the cimbri coalition.
The war contributed greatly to the political career of Gaius Marius, whose consulships and political conflicts challenged many of the Roman Republic's political institutions and customs of the time. The Cimbrian threat, along with the Jugurthine War, allegedly inspired the putative Marian reforms of the Roman legions.
I love that writing style, so eloquent. Is that yours?
@@TominusMaximus Yes is well written. Is from the oxford translated book Germania written by Tacitus. From around 70 after christ.
As a Norwegian. My english is far from that good😊 But know were to get sources👍
"They themselves, indeed, had not had intercourse with other peoples, and had traversed a great stretch of country, so that it could not be ascertained what people it was nor whence they had set out, thus to descend upon Gaul and Italy like a cloud. The most prevalent conjecture was that they were some of the German peoples which extended as far as the northern ocean, a conjecture based on their great stature, their light-blue eyes, and the fact that the Germans call robbers Cimbri"
"Moreover, their courage and daring made them irresistible, and when they engaged in battle they came on with the swiftness and force of fire, so that no one could withstand their onset, but all who came in their way became their prey and booty, and even many large Roman armies, with their commanders, who had been stationed to protect Transalpine Gaul, were destroyed ingloriously; 9 indeed, p493 by their feeble resistance they were mainly instrumental in drawing the on-rushing Barbarians down upon Rome. For when the invaders had conquered those who opposed them, and had got abundance of booty, they determined not to settle themselves anywhere until they had destroyed Rome and ravaged Italy."
"
As for the Cimbri, their foot-soldiers advanced slowly from their defences, with a depth equal to their front, for each side of their formation had an extent of thirty furlongs; 7 and their horsemen, fifteen thousand strong, rode out in splendid style, with helmets made to resemble the maws of frightful wild beasts or the heads of strange animals, which, with their towering crests of feathers, made their wearers appear taller than they really were; they were also equipped with breastplates of iron, and carried gleaming white shields. For hurling, each man had two lances; and at close quarters they used large, heavy swords."
"The Romans were favoured in the struggle, Sulla says, by the heat, and by the sun, which shone in the faces of the Cimbri. For the Barbarians were well able to endure cold, and had been brought up in shady and chilly regions, as I have said.25 They were therefore undone by the heat; they sweated profusely, breathed with difficulty, and were forced to hold their shields before their faces. For the battle was fought after the summer solstice, which falls, by Roman reckoning, three days before the new moon of the month now called August"
Plutarch Life of Marius
Rome's greatest enemy, republic and empire, was Rome itself.
Enjoyed the vid and the Rome 2 soundtrack
Enjoy these lists
Age of Mythology Greek soundtrack during the Greeks turn is 👌👌👌
Great work!
This reminds me of playing "Caesar II and III" and excitedly seeing how the barbarians of each province would be portrayed.
I'd love to see more videos, like one on "Early Republic" going into the different Italian enemies, and also a video on the Imperial era that could cover the Jewish Wars, Parthians, Arabians, Germanics etc. from that era.
Strabo was the first to comment on how long it took the Romans to conquer the Celtic Lusitanians. Bing summarizes it thusly:
"According to the Roman historian Strabo, the Romans waged war against the Iberians for a long time, subjecting one group after another, until they finally got them all under control after about two hundred years or longer. On the other hand, the Romans conquered Gaul much more easily than they did the Iberians, defeating all the peoples who lived between the Rhenus and the Pyrenees Mountains in a relatively short period of time." (8 years from a single campaign)
The sources are:
"And yet the country north of the Tagus, Lusitania, is the greatest of the Iberian nations, and is the nation against which the Romans waged war for the longest times."
Source: Book III Chapter 3
"And the Romans, since they carried on merely a piecemeal war against the Iberians, attacking each territory separately, spent some considerable time in acquiring dominion here, subjecting first one group and then another, until, after about two hundred years or longer, they got them all under control. But I return to my geographical description."
Source: Book III Chapter 4
"Again, the Romans conquered these people much more easily than they did the Iberians; in fact, the Romans began earlier, and stopped later, carrying on war with the Iberians, but in the meantime defeated all these - I mean all the peoples who live between the Rhenus and the Pyrenees Mountains."
Source: Book IV Chapter 4
Romans wasn't focused on Iberia boy ! They was for Gaul... Richer and closer...
@@thierryfromgwada9312 Gaul only took one Emperor's campaign of just 8 years to conquer by Julius Caesar.
On the other hand Iberia took 200 years to conquer with multiple Emperors and multiple campaigns and side skirmishes.
Gaul may have been richer and closer but it was also weaker. And there's no way you can say the Romans were not focused on Iberia when they focused on it for 200 years over the just 8 years that they needed to conquer all of Gaul.
@@jboss1073 Romans didn't take 200 years to conquer Iberia because it was so hard, but because it was not their main goal. They proceeded by little steps.
How long it took for muslims to invade and conquer Spain ? They stayed there 400 years. They failed to invade France. The only time in history (after Romans), France has been occupated is under Nazi regime.
Napoleon stayed 5 years in Spain, as long as than Hitler in France.
France is more difficult to defend : in the middle of Europe, a low density of population for a large country, many neighborhoods, no mountains with difficult access like nothern spain, etc...
So i can't understand what you want to prove.
@@thierryfromgwada9312 "Romans didn't take 200 years to conquer Iberia because it was so hard, but because it was not their main goal. They proceeded by little steps."
According to you. But how do you know that? Sounds like a hypothesis to me.
"How long it took for muslims to invade and conquer Spain ? They stayed there 400 years. They failed to invade France."
Well, where the muslims stayed for 400 years there was hardly any Indo-European settlement. They only stayed 30 years in the northern half of Iberia where it was populated.
France defeated them easily because they had already plenty to look after in Iberia and did not have the numbers to spread to France. It has nothing to do with France's power to fend off enemies.
@@jboss1073 You are funny ! You want to prove that the Spanish are courageous and hard to conquer, unlike the French. While history proves the opposite. The Muslims and Napoleon had no difficulty to invade Spain. They were nearby. If Rome was next to Spain, Caesar's army would have had no problem invading it, if he was interested. 400 years of foreign domination. This is enormous for a people who claim to be difficult to invade. France has never remained under foreign occupation for 400 years. France was occupied only once, it was 5 years under the Nazis. And again, French territory is easier to conquer than Spain. The English attacked France several times, but they never ruled the country. England was invaded and ruled by the Normans for centuries. The Spanish was ruled by a dictator (Franco) for decades. The Spanish never managed to drive it out. The French have never lived under a dictatorship.
Parthia sisters it's over we weren't even on the list
A good video, but you missed some Samnite victories, such as the capture of Fregellae in 321 (actually 319), the capture of Plistica in 315 (actually 313), the recapture of Fregellae in 313 (actually 311), the defeat of Bubulcus Brutus near Talium in 311 (actually 309), the likely defeat of Marcius Rutilus in 310 (actually 308), the butchering of Rome's sailors near Nuceria Altaferna in 310 (actually 308), the defeats (plural) of Appius Claudius in 296 (before the arrival of Volumnius), the defeat of Regulus in 294, and the defeat of Fabius Gurges in 292 (before the arrival of Fabius Rullianus).
Transalpine Gauls not being a Threat? It should be higher, that one village makes Fort Boyard look like broken fence and it will most likely take 100 years before Romans subdue them
You mean that village in Armorica
@@TominusMaximus Yes. And in this year i was in Saint Malo, which is the closest thing we get to that village. Its a pretty town in France. Used to be pirate center. Recommend you visit it.
On the second thought, they also saved Rome once in the while
They mostly want to be left alone so this village is no threat to Rome.
@@Duke_of_Lorraine but at the same time they saved and doomed rome
@@AxenfonKlatismrek after a few albums they mainly became a trap for overambitious bootlickers that try too hard to get in Caesar's good graces
I feel like Thrace should have gotten at least one extra point for being the home country of Spartacus
Agree 👍
Lmfao how are Sardinians ever going to recover
1- Carthago. 2- Hispania. It is impressive how hard was the conquer of Hispania for Romans. It took 2 centuries from 218BC to 19BC. It
included epic and crucial battles for the history of Rome: 2nd Punic, Lusitanian, Roman Civil Wars, Siege of Numantia...
And historical figures who had to fight in Hispania such as Scipio Aemilianus, Scipio Africanus, Julius Caesar, Pompey, Viriathus, Agrippa... until Augustus himself (something unusual) concluded the conquest in the hard and brutal Cantabrian Wars.
praetorian guard
And nothing about Dacians? King Burebista actually inspired and financed some Illiryan revolts. Also under king Decebal Dacia fought two wars with Domitianus and Trajanus. The famous column of Trajanus was raised after.
I think you must be either murican, russian or hungarian because all of you avoid mentioning Dacia. Carpae, Boii, Getae, these are Dacian tribes that have not been even ever conquered by romans.
Actually Boii tribe, as well as Scordisci were not Dacians, but lived under Burebista's rule.
And you did not mention germans, Alamani, your video is f-cking disgustingly wrong! ((((((((((((((((((((((( No Germans, no Britons, no Parthia.
When i first watched this video i thought what a shitty and wrong video but then the next day i realized it's the Republic's enemies and now, after the 2nd video i watched this again and thought wow what a nice video this was :D LuL welldone mate.
Sardinians actually tried to choose their own masters. They sent an embassy to Carthage and rebelled during the Second Punic War, but they were defeated along with the Carthaginian troops that came to assist them, look up Hampsichora. Livy and Silius Italicus wrote about it. Said events took place right after the battle of Cannae, so they had some idea of what was happening in the Mediterranean.
As for their reputation, it was pretty bad but the Romans said nothing along the lines of them being "retarded". Cicero famously dedicated most of his "Pro Scauro" oration to shit on them, since he was defending the governernor accused of stealing from their province and of murder, and he mocked them for their supposed Phoenician mixed with African origins, that according to him caused them to be liars and untrustworthy; on another note we know that Caesar's uncle Gaius Julius Caesar Strabo composed an oration to defend the Sardinians "Pro Sardis" and that Caesar recalled it and recited some passages of said oration from memory, so their reputation wasn't entirely negative across the Roman world.
.
As for the danger they posed, Strabo explicitly mentions the repeated attacks of the Sardinian pirates from the non romanized parts of the island on the Tuscan coast (Book 5 of Strabo's Geography), but still, nothing comparable to the Ligurian and Illyrian pirates probably.
Cicero also said about a rich Sardinian who lent him money for his consulship campaign (Famea) that he like all Sardinians was only worthy to be a slave, when said Sardinian got angry with him for not supporting him in a court case.
What about King Juba of Numibia fighting against Caesar. Of course it was part of Roman civil war, but I just thought since you included Egypt when Cleopatra fought with Antonius
Thrace may fall easy, but still keep fighting, Spartacus for example
They have to be in minimum 15 spot
As a Roman I want to put an honor whenever I can to the real Celts, not the filthy HailsGails either the Celtiberi, the real one that seek refugee under Roman protectorate in Ireland, then were slaughtered after by the Barbaric invasions…. Cesare loved you so do I, Benito once started the new E,pire wanted to remember you aswell using the Celtic Cross so do I, Love you my brother I’m sure you’re up there in the Campi Elisi smiling at us Italics, your brothers ❤
Great video, well explained!
Its quite funny because Ummayads, Almohads, Almoravids and Napoleon had the same bad time in Spain, the geography is so fucked up that locals fight more for their villages than for a country as a whole, there is no capital to conquer at all but a lot of villagers fighting their own local war.
If Octavius died in Illyricum ... their score will be much much higher... (even though, he had at least 2 near death battle. Illyricum is def not a push over at all)
Carthage and Samnium really had the best chances to either severely limit or outright annex Roman imperialism, but credit to the Iberians and Gauls too. It seems Western Europe, including the migrating Cimbri, were tougher in general than Eastern Europe. It's not until the Goths and Sassanids that the East becomes truly treacherous, while the northern/western flanks and Rhine frontier fortifications were hot for centuries.
Goths are germanic. basically western europe
well Mithridates tried his best but tbf Rome striked the East when it was at its weakest after centuries of infighting after the collapse of the Persian and the hellenistic empire
@@Freedmoon44 his only chance of victory was beating an isolated and cut off Sulla. Once Lucullus took over, he had no chance.
[.How About Opium War 2 .]
IT BE INTRESTED ..
Ciceron wrote about sardinian beign the worst slaves because at the first possibility they would kill their masters, and core sardinian lands were never controlled by romans
Romans never conquered Sardinia completely the centre always remained nuragic and independent also some of the bigger revolts posed danger to romans
So guys like the Vandals, Goths, and Huns will be covered in the sequel video to this one? Just making sure I’m understanding your plan correctly.
I think that Sicily should be considered instead of only Syracuse, and should be higher in the ranking, since two of the 3 servile revolts originated in Sicily.
Can you complete the map of the Eastern Romans every month?
I am not good at English. I used a translator
@@totaa-pb5cw fear not. It's understandable.
The Roman conquest of Thrace was a gradual process that occurred over several centuries, not a single campaign. I think it should have been higher on the list.
Agreed
But didn't the Gauls in cisalpine Gaul come from transalpine Gaul rather recently (6th century BC) before Rome started to rise and eventually invaded ?
It's difficult to separate them, as they weren't there for that long and came from other Gaulish tribes. Unless I'm wrong about something, which is possible.
they actually stayed in Northern Italy for quite a while but yea they directly comes from Transalpine gaul and so were the Galatians actually, but tis easy to separate them because they were divided as tribes, Transalpine gaul was partly unified thanks to Vercingetorix and Cisalpine gaul never really had Transalpine gaul for support when they wreck Rome
@@Freedmoon44 One thing I realized which strengthens what I said, is that the Gaulist tribe that sacked Rome, led by Brennus, actually immigrated in Cisalpine Gaul just a few years before that attack. It was the same generation that traveled from translapine gaul and that sacked Rome. So it's clearly difficult to separate them from their birthplace.
Italic race still here baby still the same people from 2000 ac never mixed with anyone
HET READY FOR THE RENOVATIO IMPERII 🤚 🇮🇹
Ancient Macedonians was a greek state too speaking a doric dialect not another nation. It was just a separate state.
Whats with the Germans
Where is Palmyra
Where are my germanian brothers? Arminius (Cherusci) should have gotten on the list.
I have to criticize Numidia:
-Jugurtha wanted only to avoid conflict because he knew he couldn’t win. He bribed senators but then killed roman merchants.
-why didn’t you point out that numidia was still free under Juba 1 and that it was conquered by Caesar
Didn t the Macedonians under Phillip the 5th attack the Roman holdings in illyrua and epirus so they could assist Hannibal?
That is correct
And to think all of its enemy will eventually become part of rome itself.
this guy seriously didnt talk about judea what a joke. another flop.
If Pontians had not adopted Roman culture they would be pain in the ass btw
Greatest enemies of Rome and Dacia isn’t included c’mon…
You forgot the kingdom of Dacia! Burebista's kingdom founded the first Dacian state created by the union of the Geto-Dacian tribes and ruled by Burebista between 82 BC. and 44 BC Securing its borders, Burebista became involved in the civil war between Caesar and Pompey, helping Pompey. Caesar, victorious, organized an expedition to punish Burebista, but it was interrupted by Caesar's death in 44 BC. BC, shortly followed by the death of Burebista. In this context comes to power Decebalus (87-106 AD) He restores the unity of the Dacian state, on a smaller territory than Burebista's state, but more centralized and powerful. As early as 87, he had to repel the attacks of the Romans, first at Turnu Roșu, where he defeated a Roman army led by Cornelius Fuscus at Tapae. In 88, a Roman army under Tettius Julianus attacked again through the Banat, Decebalus making a peace with Domitian in 89 that made him a client of Rome. The decisive confrontation took place in 101-102 when the Roman army, led by Emperor Trajan, after extensive preparations, attacked Dacia, Decebal being forced to conclude a crushing peace. From here to the defeat of May 105-106 was only a step, facilitated by the construction of the bridge over the Danube at Drobeta by Apollodorus of Damascus The Dacian state being occupied, the Dacian tribes from the north (Free Dacians) remained with a gentile organization , sometimes allying with the Carpi to raid the Roman province of Dacia. Earlier the emperor Domitian is forced to accept the payment of an annual tribute to the Dacians. Thus Rome paid tribute to Dacia for over a decade.
Mithradates and Pontus are no.1
I love em so much, my favourite historical state
Remember Mithradates was a Messiah like figure at the time
Cyprus Crete Macedon epirus all of these areas have hellenic blood