"The Roman Legions would occasionally just Overpower their foes with Numbers for Dominance"

BranchofSin5580·Apr 21, 2015·38 votes·3,823 views

http://i.imgur.com/7JgSz5D.png

This is accurate.

43 Comments

StrawberrycocoaApr 21, 201542 votes

Well the Romans were silly, then. The best way to assert your dominance is urine.

KeevalroyApr 21, 201528 votes

{quoted}

Well the Romans were silly, then. The best way to assert your dominance is urine.

There's a reason the Roman Empire isn't around anymore, and i think you've just found it.

HawkmedApr 21, 201514 votes

but lets not forget what happen to the Roman Empire, what rises always falls.

femméApr 21, 201521 votes

{quoted}

but lets not forget what happen to the Roman Empire, what rises always falls.

Hold your tongue profligate

GloriousKaiserApr 21, 20158 votes

EDIT: ^^^ That moment when great minds think alike

Avé, TRUE TO CEASER

StrawberrycocoaApr 21, 20159 votes

Ave, true to Caesar!

ModAcademy KaynApr 21, 20152 votes

It's already happening...

http://www.surrenderat20.net/2015/04/421-pbe-update.html#more

Luci0usApr 22, 20151 votes

Veni, vidi, vici!

BranchofSin5580Apr 21, 20154 votes

{quoted}

but lets not forget what happen to the Roman Empire, what rises always falls.

Well, then we must wait for the Arrival of the Huns.

ProeliumApr 21, 20151 votes

{quoted}

but lets not forget what happen to the Roman Empire, what rises always falls.

This reasoning always makes me laugh. (note I know you're being funny with the post, so not criticizing YOU)

The mentality that says "But Rome fell.." Can be applied to anything other than the current powers that have yet to go through their life-cycle. It's a Nihilistic view that pretty much says "so never try". And when people tout this way of thinking FOR REAL (not for fun in a game forum) it just shows how little they consider the consequences of that reasoning.

ANYWAY... I thought your post was fun in relation to Jinx... I've been reading too much History lately... I'm sorry for the psudo-lecture. lol :D

BranchofSin5580Apr 21, 20151 votes

{quoted}

This reasoning always makes me laugh. (note I know you're being funny with the post, so not criticizing YOU)

The mentality that says "But Rome fell.." Can be applied to anything other than the current powers that have yet to go through their life-cycle. It's a Nihilistic view that pretty much says "so never try". And when people tout this way of thinking FOR REAL (not for fun in a game forum) it just shows how little they consider the consequences of that reasoning.

ANYWAY... I thought your post was fun in relation to Jinx... I've been reading too much History lately... I'm sorry for the psudo-lecture. lol :D

Rome fell because it got divided in 2 and one of the Empires had a retard in charge.

Honorius.

ProeliumApr 21, 20156 votes

{quoted}

Rome fell because it got divided in 2 and one of Empires had a retard in charge.

Honorius.

There's way more factors than that... But... yeah that's a major one. A string of horrible leaders in fact.

EvilRabbittApr 21, 20153 votes

And "bread and circus". =P Most op history thing around.

rebound2Apr 21, 201511 votes

The Romans never died... They just nearly died, and became the Catholic Church. They still exist in their empire somewhere in Italy, AKA Vatican City. This accurate history fact is brought to you by Riot Games.

BranchofSin5580Apr 21, 20155 votes

{quoted}

The Romans never died... They just nearly died, and became the Catholic Church. They still exist in their empire somewhere in Italy, AKA Vatican City. This accurate history fact is brought to you by Riot Games.

The Roman (Byzantine) Empire ended when Constantinople fell to the Turks.

rebound2Apr 21, 20151 votes

Little did you know... That was an inaccurate history fact, brought to you by someone other than Riot Games.

CubedJusticeApr 21, 20152 votes

The Byzantine and Roman empires were different, though.

BranchofSin5580Apr 21, 20155 votes

{quoted}

The Byzantine and Roman empires were different, though.

The Roman Empire got divided in two after Theodosius Augustus death.

Onorius (the retarded brother) took the Western Part of the Empire, which quickly fell to the Migrating tribes and the Huns.

Arcadius Augustus took the Eastern Part, which later became known as the Byzantine Empire.

So, while they aren't exactly the same, it's pretty close.

CubedJusticeApr 21, 20151 votes

Yes, but calling them the same thing is silly, no?

BranchofSin5580Apr 21, 20151 votes

{quoted}

Yes, but calling them the same thing is silly, no?

yeah

my bad.

AelvrApr 21, 20152 votes

Not necessarily. There is a direct continuity culturally, politically, and religiously; also, "Byzantium" is what the westerners called the empire, the Byzantines called themselves "the Romans."

CubedJusticeApr 22, 20152 votes

No, no. You misunderstand. I'm not saying you can't use the words interchangeably, I'm saying that acting as if they're the same thing is the issue, as in

The Roman (Byzantine) Empire ended when Constantinople fell to the Turks

B1naryB0tApr 21, 20151 votes

Only the plebs say such nonsense!

ModAcademy KaynApr 21, 20154 votes

Someone should just, like, stab Caesar.

DeusVultApr 21, 20152 votes

Cave Idus Martiae

IcyPepperApr 22, 20151 votes

Jinx stabbing Jinx.

Uh... why does this oddly make sense?

Only Play DariusApr 21, 20153 votes

Jinx is only OP because her main rival, Tristana, got gutted to hell.

Critmaster GarenApr 22, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=Jelly Mac,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=2rhXHIZI,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2015-04-21T20:32:07.190+0000)

Jinx is only OP because her main rival, Tristana, got gutted to hell.

"shes only op, because they nerfed a completely broken adc who would outshadow her"

tristanas kit is beyond reason. how is that an argument against jinx being op?

2pudge1cupApr 21, 20153 votes

Funny image but the title isn't really true.

They were outnumbered in the majority of battles. They would win due to organization/discipline and the fact that they understood how to siege cities.

SpecterVonBarenApr 22, 20154 votes

{quoted}

Funny image but the title isn't really true.

They were outnumbered in the majority of battles. They would win due to organization/discipline and the fact that they understood how to siege cities.

It also helps that they were the national equivalent of the Black Knight and just kept coming back every time they had a setback.

Heckin SupportApr 21, 20152 votes

This happens time and time again in league if you ask me. New better champs with better kits come alone and just outscale the older champions.

Someone should remake this with Sejuani and Amumu.

Potato DocApr 21, 20152 votes

Well history lesson Hannibal in the battle of cannae absolutely destroyed the an army of 50k-70k(historians estimate) with an army only the fraction of the size and it was so much of a domination fest they call it a slaughter more then a battle. Seriously look it up, the romans didnt stand a chance. Even though they tried to overpower Hannibal with numbers Numbers dont mean everything

BranchofSin5580Apr 21, 20152 votes

{quoted}

Well history lesson Hannibal in the battle of cannae absolutely destroyed the an army of 50k-70k(historians estimate) with an army only the fraction of the size and it was so much of a domination fest they call it a slaughter more then a battle. Seriously look it up, the romans didnt stand a chance. Even though they tried to overpower Hannibal with numbers Numbers dont mean everything

Hannibal Barca isn't exactly the best example as Carthage fell shortly after he failed to take Rome, despite being more than capable of taking it.

RasCaelestisApr 22, 20152 votes

Part of the problem there though was that Carthage never really helped Hannibal. He was a Carthaginian and everything he did was for the betterment of Carthage, but the leaders of Carthage were so scared of Rome that they refused to give him proper support or publicly praise him. They used his victories as proof that 'Hannibal can do anything, we don't need to help.' even when Hannibal tried to ask them for supplies/troops/etc. Then when he tried to warn them that a Roman army was coming, they were unprepared and not even Hannibal could save the city from destruction.

I will admit, I could be wrong here (it's been a while since I read about the Carthaginians), but the fall of Carthage never struck me as being because Hannibal was at fault. It's similar to the Siege of Poltava. King Charles XII of Sweden had been undefeated in every battle, but he had been wounded before the Siege of Poltava (the end of the Great Northern War), so put one of his generals in charge. Things fell apart pretty quickly, but essentially lesser generals each thought "I can do things better!" and didn't listen to each other, leading to the army winning a majority of engagements, but not trusting each other to do things properly or sending reinforcements later than anticipated. Eventually, the Swedish army surrendered a battle that they should have won.

DeadbeatBanditApr 22, 20152 votes

Kalista > Varus, Twitch

Potato DocApr 21, 20151 votes

my example was more of the battle of cannae and using position and strategy to destroy numbers then it was Hannibal and his exploits

BranchofSin5580Apr 21, 20151 votes

{quoted}

my example was more of the battle of cannae and using position and strategy to destroy numbers then it was Hannibal and his exploits

yeah

there are many cases of such an event in history

Google Battle of Tours

A Statement known as Charles "The Hammer" Martel defeated Hordes and Hordes of Muslims with just City Garrison and no Professional Armies whatsoever.

Slaughtering everyone, including their Leader.

iamthegoatofwarApr 21, 20151 votes

yha starting fights on your terms can easily allow 1 man to kill 20 before they figure out what happened. (which if you play the game RIGHT is assassin's creed in a nutshell)