Romans or Britons?

[weaverwarrior12]

This is another one of my versus threads, I did one not too long ago. (Normans vs Anglo-Saxons)

This one is hard for me because I have Breton blood, but that Breton blood is Romano-British.
So I guess I will side with the Romans.

[Vespasian]

The Romans of course, one of the most successful empires known to man and its capabilities would have only reached further across the world had Caesar not been assassinated.

[kpetschulat]

The Romans of course, one of the most successful empires known to man and its capabilities would have only reached further across the world had Caesar not been assassinated.

Julius Caesar was calming down with his conquests. After seizing the empire for himself, and becoming dictator, he had already captured substantial amounts of land (rich in resources), in Gaul, Iberia, and Gibraltar. He even took lands in Syria, Aegyptus, and Cyrenaica. He hadn't the need to expand further. The richest of lands in the known world were already Roman, thanks to him.

However, if I truly had to pick Romans or Britons... It'd be very hard to decide, but probably ultimately come down to the Romans. The Britons were master ambushers and masters of fear. The Romans were master soldiers and masters of discipline. Although the Britons had ambushed the Romans countless times, they almost always lost due to the Romans knowing how to keep cohesion and rotating tired soldiers. It kept fresh troops at the front the whole time, and often times, they fought exhausted British warriors.

[Brock]

Romans because of the introducing of a very regimented military and political system that worked. Britons where just another reason for the fall of the Roman Empire and setback of human technology and culture.

[Vespasian]

The Romans of course, one of the most successful empires known to man and its capabilities would have only reached further across the world had Caesar not been assassinated.

Julius Caesar was calming down with his conquests. After seizing the empire for himself, and becoming dictator, he had already captured substantial amounts of land (rich in resources), in Gaul, Iberia, and Gibraltar. He even took lands in Syria, Aegyptus, and Cyrenaica. He hadn't the need to expand further. The richest of lands in the known world were already Roman, thanks to him.

True, but one of the main reasons the Roman Empire fell was due to corruption, something which Caesar worked so very hard to eradicate within the senate. As im sure you are familiar with him wanting the people to have the power unlike the rest of the senate. As well as this concerning not having a need to expand further the Roman Empire was yet to conquer a vast amount of East Asia and Germania, all which contained a fair amount of wealth and would have improved the Roman Auxiliaries. Consequently from these potential conquers Rome would have benefited financially and military wise.

[Matthew]

On the topic of your blood, surely any white european could claim to be related or have the blood of literally any european ethnic group from 2000 years ago considering your ancestors double every generation you would have theoretically hundreds of times the number of ancestors than there were people alive at that time.

[Gamboji]

I think romans are better.

[The Mighty McLovin]

I think romans are betters.

pls stop skill