Furthermore, The Roman’s did not have to conquer lots of little towns, around the Mediterranean because lots of little towns willingly joined up with Rome, like the Arab city of Nabataea (See Trajan). I am not saying they didn’t have conflicts in the Med. (See Thrace). Armendariz, is confusing his histories.

Additionally, the Romans invited towns and cities to join with Rome before, “They’d go into a little” village and siege the hell out of it. Thus, Roman military maxim, “to distress the enemy more by famine that by the sword is the mark of consummate skill.” (See Masada). Rome saw it’s soldiers as a valuable assets, that were not to be squandered. Besides, the vast majority of cities jumped at the opportunity to have the chance to be a part of the Rome empire.

I am sure I was taught that the use of crucifixion was a punishment solely for criminals, not for enemies captured in military campaigns, which would have been seen as valuable slaves. The Romans were all about humiliating their enemies. Anyone know exactly-Crucifixion as a criminal tool vs. political tool?

Armendariz, confused his quote mixing Roman history, it annoys me. You can just tell he practiced that line (over and over) and there was probably lots of machismo back slapping going on in the office about how clever and cool they were to reference the Romans. Like Obama referencing the 30′s gangster movie the Untouchables.

If you are going to make a public statement referring to historical events, good lord, have the foresight to verify your data before you speak.

http://newstime.co.nz/al-gore-is-a-liar.html