Ranking Enemies of the Roman Republic (part I) 

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.

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

Sauce?

​@@SaltandpepperbackGorrilamy left butt cheek

Lucius Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus@@SaltandpepperbackGorrila

*its

Savage Romans not caring about civilizations

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

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.

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

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.

😂

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.

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. 😂

@@PlaceholderFutureChanges the fuck you mean when vladimir goes there, russia would literally never reach iberia 💀

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

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.

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

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.

Yeah. My accent might not understandable for everyone.

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.

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.

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

It is, thanks man.

I thought about putting the dates (509 BC - 27BC) in the thumbnail but I would probably still get the "where Dacia" comments.

There are accounts by Cesar himself describing this!

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.

Thanks. I am considering it.

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

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

Fanatically defending when genocide is coming is still fanatical defending man.

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."

OBELIX IS NOT FAT!

Say pizza to drugs. Say no to yes.

Interestingly that does not show in the genetics - Iberians still plot far away from even northern Italians, and overlap with the French instead.

@@jboss1073 Then main romanization process did not came from genetic or ethnic italians but as a willing cultural shift from iberian populatio who embraced latin lenguage and cultural manners as a more ''civiliced culture''

​@@javibertolo1968 You are absolutely right. Not only that, but the original Romans from 753 BC were genetically Iberian and it was only after the Republic fell that they started becoming genetically more Tuscan and separated into north, central and southern Italian like today.

Yuuup

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.

Hood point

I am not good at English. I used a translator

@@totaa-pb5cw fear not. It's understandable.

Sure

Arabs, Turks, Persians, Normans, Bulgars, Venetians, kind of easy to go on

Yup

Holy Christian city

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

@@erwannthietart3602 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 did not intend to place any civil war factions in the list because then you would find out that any civil war nation is just on the top.

Same with Parthia.

roman republic* not roman empire că si eu mă asteptam să vad dacia in top 5 :))

Where do you think Illyria is.

@@TJ-ml8tt western Balkans?

Probably paired them with Thracians, which is a mistake.