How often do you think about the Roman Empire?

Men of GAF, how often do you think about the Roman Empire?

  • Every day

    Votes: 53 23.0%
  • Every week

    Votes: 52 22.6%
  • Every month

    Votes: 32 13.9%
  • Rarely

    Votes: 50 21.7%
  • Never

    Votes: 41 17.8%
  • Not a man

    Votes: 2 0.9%

  • Total voters
    230
I remember this. I was in Rome last year so I probably spent a good two weeks thinking about the Roman Empire every hour. Outside of that, very rarely.
 
Two days ago there was a programme about Julius Caesar and a failed attack in France. Until now that was the last time I thought about them.

The programme was made by the French though so it might have had lies, the episode before was about Agincourt and they downplayed the English victory by claiming they weren't massively outnumbered and it was 12,000 v 9,000 not 20,000 to 9,000
 
Last edited:
Not too much, but I do think about the Holy Roman Empire quite a bit.

I think a lot about christianity, and if Europe made a mistake in forsaking it. I am starting to think that assuming it was about god is wrong, that it was more about unification. The Holy Roman Empire was the core of christianity in europe and the successor to the roman empire. It's legacy went back 1500 years.
 
I thinks Its time for a rewatch of Rome, RIP Ray Stevenson

Hoping to travel to Pompeii and Herculaneum in the next few yrs , Once I can finally throw my youngest son out of my wallet!
 
I'll be thinking about the Romans a lot more when this game comes out in a few months

DKWJPv45E8c8yUjV.gif
 
Two days ago there was a programme about Julius Caesar and a failed attack in France. Until now that was the last time I thought about them.

The programme was made by the French though so it might have had lies, the episode before was about Agincourt and they downplayed the English victory by claiming they weren't massively outnumbered and it was 12,000 v 9,000 not 20,000 to 9,000
The french are a fucking joke. Their obsession with England is the biggest insecure hate-boner in existence. Half the reason they escort migrants across is with the intention of causing England problems.
 
The french are a fucking joke. Their obsession with England is the biggest insecure hate-boner in existence. Half the reason they escort migrants across is with the intention of causing England problems.
It was a bit of a weird program, shoddy looking cg and it had several experts discussing how the French women were whores who offered themselves to the Romans to survive even though through a communication error they attacked when Caesar didn't want them to and got routed by the locals.
 
The programme was made by the French though so it might have had lies, the episode before was about Agincourt and they downplayed the English victory by claiming they weren't massively outnumbered and it was 12,000 v 9,000 not 20,000 to 9,000

The claim that the English were not that heavily outbumbed all come from bias sources. In England, Professor Anne Curry is one of those people - and since there is a lack of French sources- I'm confident that she is the one responsible for starting this idea.

Anne Curry wrote a new history on Agincourt in 2005 and although the book is fantastic and is thoroughly researched, it does have issues.

The figures in the book change as the book goes on, and it's clear that Curry isn't a fan of Henry. A vast majority of historians who have written about the battle and/or have researched it disagree with Curry.

Although Henry sailed with around 12000 men, we need to consider the thousands who died at Harfleur (mostly due to sickness), the 1500 left to garrison Harfleur, and the men who died to sickness during the march through France, or were too sick to march and were left behind.

A vast majority of historians (not just English) estimate the English had around 6000 men left at Agincourt (1000 men at arms and 5000 archers) and the French perhaps 12000 or slightly more.

I respect Curry as a historian, but she earned a L for that one.
 
The claim that the English were not that heavily outbumbed all come from bias sources. In England, Professor Anne Curry is one of those people - and since there is a lack of French sources- I'm confident that she is the one responsible for starting this idea.

Anne Curry wrote a new history on Agincourt in 2005 and although the book is fantastic and is thoroughly researched, it does have issues.

The figures in the book change as the book goes on, and it's clear that Curry isn't a fan of Henry. A vast majority of historians who have written about the battle and/or have researched it disagree with Curry.

Although Henry sailed with around 12000 men, we need to consider the thousands who died at Harfleur (mostly due to sickness), the 1500 left to garrison Harfleur, and the men who died to sickness during the march through France, or were too sick to march and were left behind.

A vast majority of historians (not just English) estimate the English had around 6000 men left at Agincourt (1000 men at arms and 5000 archers) and the French perhaps 12000 or slightly more.

I respect Curry as a historian, but she earned a L for that one.
Well, one Englishman is worth 3 French so I can see the confusion. One Welsh archer is worth 7 frenchies so the math gets even more confusing :P

Edit: I realize this may be a little insulting to our French Gaf brethren. Y'all make wonderful croissants and sauces, if that's any consolation :P
 
Last edited:
Well, one Englishman is worth 3 French so I can see the confusion. One Welsh archer is worth 7 frenchies so the math gets even more confusing :P

Edit: I realize this may be a little insulting to our French Gaf brethren. Y'all make wonderful croissants and sauces, if that's any consolation :P

Lol.

I would normally agree, but let's not forget that the French won that war 😉
 
not often... just that I'm glad I wasn't born in ancient Sparta, because I don't think was a cute enough teenager to get any of the higher status guys to be my lover...
 
Top Bottom