i know that. just get the facts right, thats all.
This is a deceptive statement. While the Roman government agrees with the sentiment, by attacking the wording of a sentence to prove a point, the Roman government was trying to score cheap points to shore up its position. The point of this simple "correction" is to make the opposition look uninformed, while putting on a mask and pretending the Roman government is, somehow, a wise state actor.
untrue by a huuuuuge margin. the world knew that Rome was Rome, but pretended otherwise as a slight to them. you would say that Yugoslavia isnt Yugoslavia when the capital is in Bucharest and not Belgrade? if you say no, then you are a hypocrite and that invaliates everything you say.
More deception. The revisionists in the Roman government are attempting to paint a different picture of an event that happened nearly two thousand years ago solely for the purposes of legitimacy and to, proactively, justify the lost of Constantinople, the only claim to being a Roman Empire the Empire had. With Constantinople lost, it goes without saying the state has no cultural ties to the Roman identity any longer. The Roman Empire, which controls not Rome, Ravenna, or Constantinople, cannot claim to be a Roman Empire. If it can, then why not Yugoslavia? After all, Yugoslavia, with the recent embrace of the Orthodox Church and successfully acquisition of Constantinople, now has a stronger claim to the purple than the Greek Emperor in Ankara does.
standard size of the Roman Army is 25,000 soliders. surely you can do the math? the Emperors guard have 50,000.
we chose to have small army sizes to ease logistical concerns.
and the other 400,000 are Constantinople people, who chose to stay behind as Civilian militia. they are not considered armies.
For those with any sense of how armies should be organized, this are divisions. Assuming three to four divisions in a corps, two to four corps to a real army, and that still equals
according to the math, its 20 regular armies, plus the Emperors Guard, and 20 reserve armies, plus the Reserve Emperors Gaurd. only four reserve armies are actually activated.
Two to five
real armies (as opposed to fake armies of 25,000). There is also the claim that smaller armies mean easier logistics, but this makes zero sense when all the armies are operating in a relatively small theater, and would be practically bumping up against each other. Like I said, forty Roman armies is equal to, effectively, two to five real armies. We're talking twenty-five different commanders, assuming the Roman Armies aren't organized into larger groups, which begs the question. What is the next step above Roman Army? Is a Roman Army Group a corps? Then what about a real, modern, field army?
There is a reason why successful armed forces aren't organized in this way, and Rome's poor showing in the Balkan War lends credence to this belief.
i question your ability to know what a functioning economy is.
A country that is desperately holding onto its foothold on another continent, especially if that foothold contains the single most important legacy city of that country, wouldn't waste time and not mobilize the reserves. The inability to mobilize and the seemingly lack of political will paints a picture of a Rome that had given up on Constantinople before the Treaty of Cairo was even signed. Given the events after the creation of forty divisions, again, it is hard to disagree with this line of thinking.
are you crazy? are out out fo your mind? we sitll have Constantinople, the most important city in this province after 9 months. 9. months. if anything its the Yugoslavians who should be questioned, for their failure to overcome the Romans.
For the history books, readers. The Emperor of a country that lost the second most important city in that country's imperial legacy is now treating his own military forces as no better than the barbarian mercenary forces it used to hire.