If you think they have a good navy, congrats, but you are the exception. Not the rule. Even at a very surface level of social research, you will find that the vast majority of topics and discussions around the Roman Empire have very little to do with their navy.
I find it ironic that you said “I do think of a good, navy… and other people too seems from the answers of this topic… so your argument already crumble…” and then followed it in the next paragraph with “I have this idea/think this so most people should agree with…isn’t a really great argument.”. Bruh, bats can see more than you if you wrote that with a straight face and at no point thought “Am I invalidating my own statement…?”
Firstly, I think you mean “Historical evidence”, not “scientific fact”. Not the same thing buddy. English.
Secondly, mare nostrum was what the Romans called the Tyrrhenian Sea, which isn’t even a fraction of the Mediterranean as a whole. The Mediterranean itself they referred to as the Mare Internum or “Internal Sea”.
Once again, you begin a sentence with “When I think of the romans,” which is ironic when we can refer to your other comment not two paragraphs above, " “I have this idea/think this so most people should agree with…” isn’t a really great argument." Bruh, bricks are less dense than you. You either better start phrasing your words better or get a first class ticket on the Hypocrite train.
Bahah! Wait, so “I do think of a good, navy” but you’re happy to change the bonuses anyway? What happened to “mare nostrum”? You disagree with my whole argument, but my argument is based on historical, not scientific, context for the bonuses being misrepresenting of the Romans achievements. So you agree with me, but disagree with me about agreeing with me, despite agreeing with me.
What are you smoking? It can’t be legal