>>10150403I know my Barbarian, I'm gonna BTFO every single one of your argument, just like I've done in the previous thread
>Vs. Dacia and Illyria - small kingdoms that were already in decline from fighting with the Greeks for years.They were just Barbarians, I don't know what do you mean by decline, every Barbarian tribe was in decline, that's how Barbarians worked, literally the people that you praise on a daily basis are niggers
>Every time Rome faced a unified advanced organized army they either lost or got a stalemate.Like who? No one on Earth has ever been as organized at them
I love how you are literally sucking their dick while using those arguments, you're making me love Romans even more
> that's why they couldn't defeat Persia overwhelmingly despite trying for literally hundreds of yearsNah, It wasn't worthy, not only the terrain is rough for marching and extended military campaigns, but Rome influence was scarce in Persia, which would lead to backstabs or maybe some cities not fully cooperating and putting soldiers at risk in the middle of a campaign in giant foreign lands which is not considerable, you won't understand of logistics as a barbarian (some barbarians tribes literally died of starvation while marching that's how dumb your ancestors were) but it's very important, also Persia relied a lot on puppet states, a total control of Rome in these territories would have lead to centuries of internal conflicts and revolts. Also Horse Archers in the sand.
>They couldn't even take over all of Germania despite trying for hundreds of years.They did genocide the 80%, that's why you are mad, I don't understand your point, so you don't blame them bro?
>And then they lost to bedouin rapists and Turkshits. KEK.When did that happen? Turks didn't even existed back then, Bedouins I don't know if they also existed back then since they are Arabic nomadic tribes but I don't remember any legion being destroyed by them.
