Quote:
Originally Posted by TRIANGLEFROMGAURD  Not really true alot of that is based on the size of the opposing force. With the movie 300 there has been this kind of unrealistic vision of the Spartans but, in reality they were still pretty bad ass. My father is from Sparti which is modern day Sparta so we were kind of raised with the whole history of the Spartans shoved down our throats. But for example when Rome conquored Greece (I use the term concour lightly because the political and military power switched from Greece to Rome but, Greece still remained a vital part of the empire and was the second largest language spoke with in the empire after Latin, In fact the Roman empire eventually split in to a west and east empire. The east was Greek controlled from Alexandria and is normally referred to as the Byzantine empire) but, after Rome gained control and made it self the head of the empire they changed their army combative style to the Spartan phalenx. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by 47MartialMan I am not saying that a "winning" army may have not "learned something" from a losing one. I am saying that a conquering army, after such, tended to spread their better/proven experience and thus the conquered methods, per less effective, would be outcasted. |
Specifically why this happened, I think, is because of the general Roman idea of adopting people as Romans. A strange bit of history is that as Rome was growing, people who were viewed as barbarians one day, could be viewed as Romans the next.
So, Rome is in contact with the Greeks, the Greeks become Romans, Rome adopts many aspects of Greece (such as military tactics and mythology). That strategy was what let Rome become so big. Also, it is what led Rome to collapse under its own weight.