The glory of Rome

Attached: 1589072213448.jpg (1000x750, 64.03K)

Augustine was a subverter who made up fake gods just to shit on the roman national cult and religion, he wasn't any different from a disgusting kike. Then again christianity is judaism 2.0.

Attached: IMG_20191211_101529.jpg (1117x580, 77.04K)

Attached: 1589072213449.jpg (1000x750, 75.28K)

>Disbelieve all of the historical record
>Only trust cynical modern scholars

>Nooooooo all modern historians are literally bought by them and want nought but to destroy everything that's good with the world, waaaa-waaaa-waaaa-
Seethe more paganoid, it will be good training for when you burn in the fires of hell for all eternity for rejecting the one and only God.

Hell does not exist nigger. Have fun believing in your kike fairy tales made to control low IQ spergs like you.

Attached: IMG_20191209_002015.jpg (720x554, 68.2K)

>Hell-a does-a not-a exist-a nero. Have-a fun-a believing-a in your-a kike-a fairy-a tales-a made-a to control-a low-a IQ-a spergs-a like-a you-a.
ok LARPer.

You don't actually study much history, do you?

Only upper class women were expected to be virgins till they had legitimate children. Rome was booming with brothels hosted by men, women, boys and girls, and their ruins and art remains to this day.

If anything, that was only trivial for the time.
The only extravagance here is that he owned an island.

I am not making any assessments on classical history because my interest on the period is only passing. But the idea that you can get a perfect understanding of any historical period only through looking at primary sources if fallacious.

Maybe if you actually studied it, you would understand how it's done.

And yes you are, making the typical mistake of people whom's brains aren't able to avoid the rookie mistake: Historical anachronism.

Other than that, it could indicate an underveloped hability for abstract thinking. You just can't grasp that the world wasn't, and even still isn't, just what you see.

underdeveloped*

The level of engagement historians have to make with primary sources goes far beyond just taking them at face value. I don't know if you get off by calling someone else a retard while being a retard yourself or what.

just because one guy said it and its believable doesnt make it true
nobody is arguing "its too crazy to be true"

Early republic > any other period of Roman history. Expanding beyond the Italian peninsula was a mistake.

The irony. You are so unconfortable to face a reality that is strange to you, that you simply resort to blunt denial, and name calling.

I guess you should teach ancient history doctors from around the world your ways, because no one else got it right, like you did in 5 minutes.

Brilliant observation. Write an essay on that one, please.

thats not very cash money

Look, Doctor Macaco, I don't care about your fancy words, and I don't have any delusions about being some kind of expert on ancient history expert unlike you, but I've read enough history books and enough historians explaining their methodology to understand the severe importance of questioning every single primary source they come across with, especially if it's probable that the author of it had some kind of interest on reporting history in a particular way, or, hell, even if he didn't, the author could genuinely think he's reporting the actual facts and not propaganda but still be wrong and biased. Which is one of the reasons why the works of Greek historians are always taken with a grain of salt, especially if they move away from the area of the Balkans and Asia Minor.

This makes it even hotter

late but not very-late Republic was better. If only they listened to the Gracchus Brothers
>ugh what could have been

why are italians such massive degenerates? even the popes were like this
are they like this today?