General Roman
 |
 | # 208 Tin 54mm Figure Toy Soldier Roman General Maximus |  |  | US $29.99 | 10d 18h 44m |
 | # 113 Tin 54mm Toy Figure Roman General Marcus Antonius | | 0 Bid | US $9.99 | 20h 44m |
 | Toy Soldiers 1/32 Rome vs. Carthage Scipio Roman General Black Hawk Metal New | | | US $71.98 | 25d 2h 44m |
 | BlackHawk BHT-0309 - Battle of Zama: Scipio (Roman General) | | | US $72.00 | 17d 22h 44m |
| Powered by phpBay Pro |
General Roman
A Roman General noted that they were always "reorganizing" and could not get training done. Can anyone help?
I read this some time ago, not in the Dictionary of Military and Naval quotations.
It's a hoax. Attributed to the Roman Petronius, often posted up on army sites, printed in service magazines, etc but HE NEVER SAID IT.
|
| # 208 Tin 54mm Figure Toy Soldier Roman General Maximus | | | US $29.99 | 10d 18h 44m |
| # 113 Tin 54mm Toy Figure Roman General Marcus Antonius | | 0 Bid | US $9.99 | 20h 44m |
| Toy Soldiers 1/32 Rome vs. Carthage Scipio Roman General Black Hawk Metal New | | | US $71.98 | 25d 2h 44m |
| BlackHawk BHT-0309 - Battle of Zama: Scipio (Roman General) | | | US $72.00 | 17d 22h 44m |
| Powered by phpBay Pro |
| | The Roman General Vespasian $49.99 The Roman General Vespasian - Giclee Print |
| | The Triumph of a Roman General $34.99 Guardi The Triumph of a Roman General - Giclee Print |
| | General Germanicus Caesar Roman $49.99 General Germanicus Caesar Roman - Giclee Print |
| | Roman General Accompanied by a German Warrior During the Roman Empire $39.99 Roman General Accompanied by a German Warrior During the Roman Empire - Giclee Print |
| | Head of Statue of Julius Caesar, Roman General and Statesman $69.99 Head of Statue of Julius Caesar, Roman General and Statesman - Photographic Print |
| | Julius Caesar, 100-44 BC Roman general, Sending Roman Colony to Carthage $49.99 Julius Caesar, 100-44 BC Roman general, Sending Roman Colony to Carthage - Giclee Print |
| | Hannibal, the Carthaginian General Who Defeated the Roman Army in 218 $39.99 Hannibal, the Carthaginian General Who Defeated the Roman Army in 218 - Giclee Print |
| | Relief from a Sarcophagus Depicting the Submission of a Barbarian to a Roman General $49.99 Relief from a Sarcophagus Depicting the Submission of a Barbarian to a Roman General - Giclee Print |
| | Assassination of Pompey the Great 106-48 BC Roman Statesman and General $49.99 Assassination of Pompey the Great 106-48 BC Roman Statesman and General - Giclee Print |
| | Death of Julius Caesar, 100-44 BC Roman General and Statesman $49.99 Death of Julius Caesar, 100-44 BC Roman General and Statesman - Giclee Print |
| | Titus Quinctius Flaminius Roman General, Noted for His Campaign Against the Macedonians $39.99 Titus Quinctius Flaminius Roman General, Noted for His Campaign Against the Macedonians - Giclee Print |
| | Alexander Farnese, Italian general, Sculpted from a Column of the Roman Temple of Peace $24.99 Alexander Farnese, Italian general, Sculpted from a Column of the Roman Temple of Peace - Photographic Print |
| | Bust of the Roman General Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus (237-183 BC) $34.99 Bust of the Roman General Publius Cornelius Scipio "Africanus" (237-183 BC) - Giclee Print |
| | At the Isthmian Games Roman General Flaminius Announces Greek Independence $49.99 Patas At the Isthmian Games Roman General Flaminius Announces Greek Independence - Giclee Print |
| | An Exemplar of Roman Integrity, General Curius Dentatus Turns Down a Bribe $39.99 An Exemplar of Roman Integrity, General Curius Dentatus Turns Down a Bribe - Giclee Print |
| Account limit of 2098 requests per hour exceeded. |
WHY AFRICA was named after Roman General Sipio Aficanus Look it UP !
Roman Army General Points?
Could you give me some general points about the Roman Army that could make up a 10 line paragraph for a history exam? Just be general.
Thank you!
The Roman army played a key role in the establishment of the empire. Because the empire existed for hundreds of years, it underwent a lot of changes during that time, and is thus quite hard to sum up.
The Roman military was the 'high technology' force of its day, making use of new devices as soon as they were invented, and adopting or adapting anything they found when they entered new territories. Thus, the Romans were equipped with the catapult, testudo, ballista and polybolos. Their tactics were likewise modern, making great use of discipline and training. The Romans seldom lost a battle. (See the wiki page I have linked to, if interested.)
As time went on, they encountered light cavalry in use in Asia Minor, and acquired some of those troops in the form of allies. The Equitatus (Roman Cavalry) weren't generally Roman-born, since Romans weren't keen horsemen. Cavalry was a very minor part of the Roman army until the last days of the Empire, though.
Remember that once a conquered people became part of the Roman empire, they became Roman citizens... so many of them joined the Empire and supported it, because Roman civilisation brought a lot of benefits. As a result, the later Roman army must have been a very cosmopolitan (mixed race) force!
Roman military technology also extended to architecture. They built strong fortresses and other features such as Hadrian's Wall, for military reasons. These allowed occupied territory to be settled, as hostile tribes were pacified. Roman roads were also the best in the world - in fact, the best that would exist, even a thousand years later - and allowed rapid troop movements.
Being a powerful 'tool', control of the army was very important to Rome's endlessly scheming politicians. Towards the end of the Roman Empire, the army was repeatedly involved in political/military coups.
In addition to the army, the Romans also had a navy that was very powerful for its day.
Filed under: army men toys
I do not normally respond to comments unless they are in question form, but I do not want to let this go by without some points understood. First off I am familiar with Dispensational view being espoused. the view that is less than 200 years old and NO ONE in Church history taught or believed until the 19th century. It is the view I was raised in and believed for most of my life until I realized that I had to force passages to say things that simply were not there or I had to make characters be what the passages never state them to be.
1. There is NOTHING in the entire Bible that EVER allows for timing text to be manipulated and there is NOTHING in the Daniel passage regarding the 70 weeks to have the 70th week ripped out of it's timing context and placed into some arbitrary future. It simply isn't there or anywhere else in the Bible. When God says something will happen it will happen WHEN he says it will happen. There is no warrant for moving the 70th week out of it's context.
2. Nothing in the 2 Thess passage mentioned sacrifices AT ALL…nothing! To make the claim that the Man of Lawlessness is the same “Prince” of Daniel 9 is pure conjecture and esisegesis since NOTHING in the two passages are in any way similar. In fact, the Daniel passage ONLY introduces ONE character…Messiah the Prince. Daniel NEVER introduces a different character, especially by using the SAME NAME (Prince) for two different characters. That is both pure conjecture and horrific Biblical exegesis. If Daniel wanted to name two different characters he wouldn't use the same name and he would actually introduce a second character, which he never does.
3. The Prince did put an end to sacrifices! Jesus Christ (Messiah the Prince of Dan 9) put an end to sacrifices with His death and Resurrection. This is plainly taught in the book of Hebrews where it states that Jesus ended the sacrifice of Bulls and goats once and for all.
4. Jesus, referring to the abomination, is making a clear reference to an historical event that His audience would be familiar with. Matthew purposely uses the more Jewish/Covenantal term of Daniel's “Abomination that leaves desolate” so that Matthews readers (primarily written to Jews) while the Gospel author Luke (writing to primarily Greeks) does not use the term as his audience would not be familiar with the terminology due to their lack of Old Testament knowledge. Luke makes it easier for the Greek reader by defining the abomination when he states “when you see the city surrounded by armies you know her desolation is near.” These two Gospel authors are writing about the same thing. Look at the text side by side and it is undeniable. Jesus by way of Matthew is giving His audience a reference point. They would think about the last time the armies surrounded the city and defiled the Temple.
5. Jesus did say “when YOU see” …and just who was Jesus speaking to? Look at the first few verses of the passage. In fact, in Mark's parallel passage it states that Jesus was speaking to just a few of the Disciples. He told them that YOU would be arrested…YOU would be brought before counsels and governors…YOU will see these things…and THEY did!
6. They also saw the abomination Daniel spoke of standing in the Holy Place. Holy Place has three meanings in the Old Testament. The Temple, the City and the entire Judean area. In fact, any place that is a residence of God is considered a Holy Place including a mountain in the desolate area outside of Egypt and Mt. Sinai. But even by limiting the Holy Place to Just the Temple there is no doubt that both Antiochus Epiphanes and Titus, General of the Roman Army that assaulted the city and completely leveled the Temple (with not one stone left upon another) committed very similar acts. Note again that Luke makes it easier to understand by stating that this abomination is the city (Holy Place) surrounded by armies.
7. The covenant made during the 70th week is also fulfilled by Jesus Christ. When He took the bread He said “this is the NEW Covenant of my body…and the new Covenant of my blood.” He made that covenant with the many (exclusively the Jews) and it lasted the final 3 1/2 years of the 70th week which began exactly at the initiation of His earth ministry. That covenant promised in Jeremiah is instituted by Jesus. The Disciples preached the Gospel nearly exclsuively to the Jews for the next 3 1/2 years until the death of Ste[hen and the beginning of Paul's ministry.
8. Again I note this tendency to make the Prince of Daniel, the Man of Lawlessness and the Beast of Revelation to be the same person…also the Antichrist. But where in Scrippture are those things tied together as one? NO WHERE! This is pure conjecture and eisegesis. The Antichrist is actually never said to be a person, and the one time John uses the term to reference an individual he corrects his audience and states that there is NOT ONE but several and that they were already in the world. John calls the Antichrist as “spirit” or ideology and those that espouse those false ideas are antichrists. Read every single instance of the term Antichrist and note that John states that there are several and that is how he knew is was the LAST HOUR…not last day, last days, last years…LAST HOUR!
9. John is also the same author of Revelation where the term Beast is used. If the Beast and ASntichrist are the same person he could have used the same term but doesn't. One because Antichrist isn't an individual as all of the references to the Antichrist clearly point out, and because the Beast is both a NATION and a PERSON. Revelation 17 explains Revelation 13 quite plainly. The Beast sits on the city of seven hills, which is Rome. The seven heads of the Beast are the seven kings of that city. The first 5 kings have died (fallen), the sixth one was presently reigning and the seventh would reign for only a short time…Who are kings of the city on seven hills (Rome) and who were the first five, the sixth and who was to be the seventh that would last only a short time?
1. JULIUS
2. AUGUST
3. TIBERIUS
4. GAIUS (Caligula)
5. CLAUDIUS
6. NERO – who died by a sword wound to his head)
7. GALBA – who reigned for six months before being killed.
10. Nero made horrific was against the Saints including putting to death Peter and Paul. His torturous actions against the Christians were unbelievable including impaling them with a pole while still alive, poured flammable tar on them and lit his garden parties. We are told that he would torture Christians to get the names of more Christians so that he could feed his hunger for brutality by placing small children in the arena nad having them torn apart by wild dogs.
11. Nero's name Neron kaiser NRWN QSR = 666. He was also known as Nero Kaiser NRW QSR = 616. Many translations list that many of the earliest manuscripts actually had 616, not 666. Only Nero matches both references.
12. In every instance the time text is completely ignored. In Daniel it states the 70 weeks of years – 490 years – would be the time text for all the things listed to be fulfilled. They were, including putting an end to sacrifices. It should also be noted that the context of Daniel 9 is the Jewish people and the Judean area, NOT THE WORLD!!! In Matthew the time text is “this generation” and no other usage of the term this generation in the entire New Testament means anything other than the generation present at the time. It does not mean a future generation nor does it mean a people group. It is a time text. Revelation uses several time text to begin and end the discourse. They are NOW, SOON, AT HAND and “presently.”
13. As stated before one must prove by Scripture that the Prince, Beast, Man of Lawlessness and Antichrist are the same thing. The Scriptures do not make the connection. Antichrist is not a “person” according to the passages in 1st and 2nd John. The Prince in Daniel is Jesus as ONLY one character is introduced in the passage and if there is a second character he would not share the same name as the initial character who is undoubtedly Messiah the Prince. The Beast is proven in Revelation 17 to be Rome and the seven heads are the first seven kings of Rome, including the one who die by a wound to the head (Nero) and the one who would remain only a short while (Galba).
14. The most difficult and obscure is Paul's Man of Lawlessness. This is because Paul is answering a question without giving us the question of the background of information regarding to that “which he spoke to them in person previously.” So much is left to conjecture. What we do know is that the Thessalonians KNEW who the man was and who was restraining him. THEY were familiar with details including the man and his restrainer. How is this possible if this is some 2,000 years after all them have died? It can't be! What we do know is that this person will sit in the Temple which is a great offense as a chair is not one of the pieces of furniture allowed. We also know that this takes place at the time of the rebellion. The word apostasia means rebellion and used most often to describe wars or skirmishes than some spiritual falling away. Right before the Jewish rebellion of 66 AD the zealots entered entered the Temple, killed every Priest, including murdering the High Priest and left his body to rot in the Temple proper. They installed a false High Priest named Phannius whose first order was to remove the furniture in the Holy Place and placed a large throne-like chair where he acted as a king, but was a puppet of the evil zealots that had murdered over 1,000 people IN THE TEMPLE!
14. Finally, and most importantly to me. Both the Daniel passage and the Matthew 24 passage are judgments directed at the Jews. Daniel states that the 70 weeks were to finish the transgression of the Jews against God – which was a common occurrence throughout history. The Olivet Discourse is limited to the same area as well since it is related directly to the destruction of the Temple (not one stone) and that the warning to flee is limited ONLY to those in Judea. This is about the judgment against the Jews that was proclaimed in Matthew 23. Jesus states that ALL OF THE BLOOD OF ALL OF THE SAINTS in history would be held up against and applied to the account of the generation alive that the time He spoke. Matt 23 clearly is a curse against the Jewish leaders as Federal heads of the people of Israel. In Matt 20-22 Jesus tells stories about how the Kingdom that was promised was to be taken from them and given to another. He doesn't state that He was going to start a “different” Kingdom and that the original Kingdom would one day be given back. He states clearly that the Kingdom was being TAKEN FROM THEM. Even the pharisees recognized this when they said they perceived He was speaking about them.
Those judgments were against the one generation that took the Lord of Glory and nailed Him to a cross. No other generation could do that so no other generation could receive the punishment for doing so. Their punishment? The removal of the Kingdom and transference to others who would do the work and the destruction of the symbol of the Old Covenant – the Temple.
Why do people want to continue to claim that those localized punishments of Israel must happen again? They have already been punished! It's both sad and disheartening when the clear time text (this generation) and localized punishments (those in Judea) are applied to some future generation. Why must the Jews be punished again? And why must people take things that clearly are fulfilled in Christ and apply them to an Antichrist? That is both disturbing and blasphemous.
Just caught the end of The Last Legion. Colin Firth is very yummy as a Roman general