answersLogoWhite

0


Best Answer

There were plenty;

- Militairy: Romans were known for their well-trained, disciplined, hardened and organized troops. They used battle-lines, tactics and all kinds of different ranks. The 'barbarians', which is more of a collective name, were much less organised and usually stormed towards their opponents. Some did have sophisticated weapons like the Brittanic chariot. Romans had ballista's and all kinds of siege weapons.

- Social: The Romans had an empire with an emperor who ruled supreme. Even though there was a Senate, it did'NT have much influence after the rise of Augustus (Octavianus). The 'barbarians' were mostly made up of tribes, with a bandleader or warlord making the decisions. The Romans used this separation between the tribes in an early form of 'divide and conquer'.

- Political: Early Rome had a Senate and a (really) minor democracy with a king, until Caesar and Augustus, the first true emperor of Rome. Feuds and problems were solved by the famous Roman Law, which is the foundation of most modern laws. Most 'barbarian' tribes settled problems by banning one or several members or by a fight to the death.

- Technology: The Romans were way ahead. Hygiene for example was much better. They had bathhouses (thermen), aquaducts, fountains with clear, fresh water and a decent sewer system. They had a lenghty road-network of good quality and a solid economy, especially compared to the peoples to the north.

User Avatar

Wiki User

12y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: What were some differences between the Romans and barbarians?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Related questions

What are some differences between Soldiers and Militias?

What are some differences between soldiers and Militias


What are some differences between the way a hangfish feeds?

what are some differences between the way a hang fish feeds


What are some roman xenophobia?

The Romans were xenophobic towards the peoples who lived outside the Roman Empire. They called them barbarians a word which they borrowed from Greek. It meant foreigners and had a pejorative connotation.


Who is considered the founder of the Eastern Roman Empire?

There is no founder of the eastern Roman empire. The Roman empire was divided into east and west by historians, not Romans. This was done for ease in relating events that occurred in either the west or the east. For example, when the western part of the empire fell to the barbarians, the Romans considered it a loss of territory, not a loss of half of an empire as some historians did.There is no founder of the eastern Roman empire. The Roman empire was divided into east and west by historians, not Romans. This was done for ease in relating events that occurred in either the west or the east. For example, when the western part of the empire fell to the barbarians, the Romans considered it a loss of territory, not a loss of half of an empire as some historians did.There is no founder of the eastern Roman empire. The Roman empire was divided into east and west by historians, not Romans. This was done for ease in relating events that occurred in either the west or the east. For example, when the western part of the empire fell to the barbarians, the Romans considered it a loss of territory, not a loss of half of an empire as some historians did.There is no founder of the eastern Roman empire. The Roman empire was divided into east and west by historians, not Romans. This was done for ease in relating events that occurred in either the west or the east. For example, when the western part of the empire fell to the barbarians, the Romans considered it a loss of territory, not a loss of half of an empire as some historians did.There is no founder of the eastern Roman empire. The Roman empire was divided into east and west by historians, not Romans. This was done for ease in relating events that occurred in either the west or the east. For example, when the western part of the empire fell to the barbarians, the Romans considered it a loss of territory, not a loss of half of an empire as some historians did.There is no founder of the eastern Roman empire. The Roman empire was divided into east and west by historians, not Romans. This was done for ease in relating events that occurred in either the west or the east. For example, when the western part of the empire fell to the barbarians, the Romans considered it a loss of territory, not a loss of half of an empire as some historians did.There is no founder of the eastern Roman empire. The Roman empire was divided into east and west by historians, not Romans. This was done for ease in relating events that occurred in either the west or the east. For example, when the western part of the empire fell to the barbarians, the Romans considered it a loss of territory, not a loss of half of an empire as some historians did.There is no founder of the eastern Roman empire. The Roman empire was divided into east and west by historians, not Romans. This was done for ease in relating events that occurred in either the west or the east. For example, when the western part of the empire fell to the barbarians, the Romans considered it a loss of territory, not a loss of half of an empire as some historians did.There is no founder of the eastern Roman empire. The Roman empire was divided into east and west by historians, not Romans. This was done for ease in relating events that occurred in either the west or the east. For example, when the western part of the empire fell to the barbarians, the Romans considered it a loss of territory, not a loss of half of an empire as some historians did.


What are the differences between Poland and US?

what are some differences between poland and the united states of america


What is the height difference between a whale and elephant?

some differences between


What are some differences between the wolverine and a penguin?

everything


What are some differences between impromptu and extemporaneous speeches?

Impromptu speeches are given with little to no preparation, while extemporaneous speeches are delivered with some degree of preparation and research. In impromptu speeches, speakers rely more on their ability to think on their feet, whereas in extemporaneous speeches, speakers have more time to organize their thoughts and structure their arguments.


Is a junior rowing eight shorter than a senior?

No, but there can be some differences between lightweight, midweight, and heavy weight boats; also some differences between manufacturers.


What were the differences between the olmecs and the Mayans?

what are some of the diffrentces between mayans and the olmecs


Who are some barbarians in history?

* Atilla the HUN * Visigoths


How did many Christians react to the disintegration of Roman society during the time of the Roman Empire?

Many Romans near the end of the Roman Empire had converted from paganism to Christianity. Thus, they were pacifists, and not eager to fight the barbarians. Therefore, some of them almost welcomed the barbarians, as life for the poor in Rome was horrible, and couldn't get much worse no matter who was in charge.