A) Slavery was somewhat commonplace...but not nearly so much as in Rome...Not even close. Rome was, rightly, seen as the greatest slave-driven nation ever. Asode from Sparta, there had never been a society as servile dominated as Rome. And this from a supposedly 'responsible' society. ANd the problem of slavery would exponentialy increase in areas where Rome invaded; Slavery was somewhat known to the Gauls...in similar fashion to that of the later Vikings, a low proportion of the population ( less than 20% according to Gibbons)...when Caeser conquered Gaul, it rose to over encompass over 85% of the Gallic population. That's not just a continuation of the status quo. Rome did so wipe out many cultures...The Celtiberians were as reduced in relative numbers as the Native American populations...as were the Picts...the Celts themselves were reduced to less than 5% of ther previous population. There are others. Several substantial cities, such as Carthage ( in an age of city-dominated culturalism) were completely destroyed, lain flat, with salt spread all over the land to intentionally ruin the ability of locals to rebuild/grow food.
When the guy you're punching back isn't the guy who punched you, a lot more than we have currently. I have never said don't go after Bin Laden. I don't know anyone who has. What does that have to do with radically altering our foreign policy vis a vis invading other countries, or deciding forms of governemnt for counties we declared war on in then name of freedom, irrespective of what they want? Every single aggressive nation in history had prior actions against them that they cited as justification for becoming aggressive. Every one.
Panda, Not sure what you mean by yeah right, and then rolling your eyes, but we certinly did liberate all those countries. Aren't you in China....I guess the Flying Tigers are forgotten there, or that we defeated Japan so that they would leave China...oh well, ignorance is bliss I guess. DD
Does this 5% reflect those Celts that joined the Roman military and became Roman citizens? The only reason that I ask is that by the time Anglo-Saxons arrive in Britian most inhabitant considered themselves "British" (ie Celtic). The Picts were also never really conquered by the Romans, hence the two walls.
Rome was at war with Carthage for a very long time. Every time the war ended, the loser would build up their armies again and the cycle would renew itself. The only war to stop the Punic wars was to eliminate one of the participants. I would relate this to the Israel/Palestine conflict if the Palestinians were 10x stronger and fought using accepted military practices. In some cases, you are never going to have peace between two nations. I meant that Roman SOP was not the same as America, Spain, et al in dealing with the native populations of North and South America. Most of the conquered populations were left intact, hence the large number of slaves right? re: slavery You are just arguing numbers. At what level is slavery acceptable and when does it become not acceptable? What difference does it make what percentage of the population were slaves? The point is that Slavery was an accepted practice, and conquering nations took slaves from the conquered populations. Rome conquered a lot more nations, so there were a lot more slaves. Just out of curiosity, what would you consider the ideal society from that period?
British and Celtic were not synonomous at all...By the 5th century AD, the only real Celtic presence left was in Ireland. There was some intermingled Celtic blood throughout Europe, but Celtic, either as a cluture, or as a race, was reduced to the Emerald Isle. The Britons considered themselves just that; British...or in some cases Romans. The center of the Celtic community, both religiously and culturally, were the Druids, and the Romans intentionally wiped them out in order to 'pacify' the Celts that survived the genocides. Considering that, pre-Roman, Celtic culture and civilization stretched from Turkey to Ireland, especially in Austria, Northern Italy, surrounding the Alps, France, Belgium, parts of what is noe Germany, Spain, Portugal and England, that was some genocide. The Picts were conquered by the Romans, just not subdued permanently. The Antonine Wall reflects the original Roman boundary, and there were litteraly dozens of permanebt Roams forts in Scotland. By the time the Romans left Britain, the Pictish culture had been so reduced that they lasted little longer than the invasion of the Scotti...Which pre-Roman would have been nothing to them.
1) A pretty inacurate representation of the Punic Wars. There were only 2 real Punic Wars...both were started by the Romans...( They agreed to a peace treaty with Hamilcar after the 1str, then tore it up stating that the Senate wouldn't ratify it, and from that point on kept increasing their demands of Carthage until Hannibal reacted )...and the comparison is not really on point. It was not an on-going thing...They had had little contact at all before the 1st one arose over Sicily, and after the second was over the Carthiginians did absolutely nothing to the Romans. Cato, in fear of a rise of the former power ( kinda like pre-war Churchill, but wrong) kept repeating, over and over, in every Seante hearing " Carthage Must Be Destroyed!" This went on for years...Meanwhile the Carthiginians hadn't even raised any kind of real army, and were just farming. When the Romans finally gave into Cato's influence, and declared war on the unsuspecting Carthaginians, they could not even defend themselves, but hurriedly locked themselves in thier city, were besieged, fell, and as I said were completely destroyed: People excecuted or sold into slavery, totally...city leveled...salt sewn into earht to make it infertile...agandoned...a ruin It wasn't built again until Ceaser built it over a hunder years later, and he built it as a Roman colony, inhabited by retired Roman soldiers, Romans seeking wealth elsewhere...and very few if any actual Carthiginans. Carthaginian is not even listed as a heritage for people who live in Tunisia now...It has ceased to exist, essentially. 2) No...not just numbers. That would be like saying that everbody kills people in camps during wars,,Andersonville, the Japanese camps, etc...so that Hitler wasn't any worse, just more prolific. The Romans were recognized as the slave state of the world. And the Romans would actually go on wars just to capture more slaves when supplies were running low...that's what they were. My ideal society? Which period? I'm not being obtuse...it would really vary depending on when...and on whether I had a choice of class...
The US went to war and defeated Japan because the US was attacked on Dec 7 1941. Prior to that Japan has been invading and pillaging China for decades. Had the US not been attacked and left the US alone, it is not likely that the US would have gone to war with Japan "so that they would leave China". It is true that the US defeated Japan which had the side effect of ending Japanese occupation of China. But it is clearly a gross distortion of history to make the claim that "we (the US) defeated Japan so that they would leave China".
China was fighting Japan as a country, not as Japan's colony in WWII. Flying Tigers provided some air support for China but China had fought a long war prior to their arrival. During the 8 years that China fought Japan one and half million Japanese soliders were killed by the Chinese army and China has suffered great losses in men and properties. That's why a weak country like China were awarded a permanent seat in the UN council. Since when that liberation is defined as helping out an ally and being helped vice versa in a war?
We tried to save Vietnam from the government the people wanted while we supported a lame duck government that had almost no authority outside of Saigon. Best thing we got of that was a highly developed special forces program.
I do not think that you are right. My understanding is that the Irish, the Scotts, the Brits, the Cornish, and the Welch were all Celtic tribes (or Celtic "nations"). Obviously, each of the Celtic nations considered themselves their own people. The Welch as a people culturely survived both the Romans and the Anglo-Saxons. Historians also do not agree that the Druids were of Celtic origin (just that they were assimilated into Celtic culture). There is some evidence that the Druids arrived in Britian before the Celts. And there is no evidence of Druids in the continental Celtic tribes.
Originally posted by MacBeth Well, the USSR 'forced' several versions of 'Republics' on other nations, which weren't Republics at all...Do I get a cupie doll? I don't think they count as Democracies, sorry. Cohen...you have me a tad confused...are you agreeing or disagreeing with Rumsfeld, DD, etc.'s claims that we should enforce democracy, but not 'allow' theocracy even if that is the popular choice, the one representative of the majority? I'm not one that thinks the 'West' way of doing things is always the right way, but I do believe that a representative democracy w/ protected rights is good for all people. If said democracy wants to elect clerics and/or anti-Americans, that's perfectly fine w/ me. We should have no say in that. But the onus is on us to protect the rights of all Iraqis. What if 49% do not want to live under a theocracy? What if 49% were not Muslim? (hypothertically, since only 3% are not).
