At the risk of sounding ridiculous..
08-22-2011, 12:09 AM (This post was last modified: 08-25-2011 03:21 PM by 1871.)
RE: At the risk of sounding ridiculous..
Well thats what the ladies have told me - though they leave out the words 'cyber' and 'must be' and is include the word IS.
But anyway - at the risk of being too egotistical (oops)
BAHAHAA yerself - go on shakur you know you want to say it - B-ri-t-ish - go on you know you can do it.
Now for most of what you were saying I was in agreement with you - its just when you said about the military.at the end of your post Then you lost me.
All superpowers end.
I don't know. You're right that physically, we're talking scratches, but militaries have a big weakness. This is where you have to go back in history. I'm convinced that understanding Rome is a prerequisite for understanding the world. I've just recently started reading about it, learning about it and it's mind blowing. How did Rome collapse, the root cause? Over extended military. Once they couldn't pay their soldiers, the empire began to crumble. It took a while, sure, but everything took longer back then. Look at it in terms of economics, sustainability, and I'm convinced that England and Russia learned from the mistakes of Rome. Hell, almost everything about our "civilized" world is based off Rome. Language, law, politics, social order. When England recognized that it was over extended, what did it do? Pulled back, gave up it's territory and shit, but that's how it survived. Russia is the same. Pulled back when it could no longer sustain it's size, it's territory. Territory that's controlled through economics. Economics enforced through military means
Rome significantly changed during the reign of Contantine when he established Constantinople as a power base. Migratory movements enabled other armies to move closer. Constantine foresaw the danger of incursions from Persia but didnt himself get to deal with them
The Empire iself changed by classic Roman tactics.
Other peoples grew too strong for them and attacked. But they had to consolidate their power base somehow or face total annihilation from the tribes they had persecuted and who grew to challenge them - and then Rome was administered by those leaders.
A lot of time under Roman rule the Romans allowed a good deal of autonomy as long as they could collect taxes. Far more than the Greeks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#E...erminology
they established the power structures we have today - and its those I am suspicious of; things like the Senate, tribunes, vetoes, seperation of powers, executives, etc.
But like it or not it was Rome (although new concepts since) who was the daddy of our system today;
But for Rome though they certainly did come under pressure for a time but they reconsolidated and merely changed and then became even ‘greater’ empire.
^ re above - I doubt the Latin bit as Latin continued to be written - but that’s wiki for you - its generally accurate but contains mistakes but I am posting just for reference if you like.
Everyone knew the importance of Rome and its institutions which is why, even when Germanic invaders took over they still kept it intact;
Earlier - some 300 years after Christ an inspired Constantine the Great (a fitting title) changed Rome to lead a Christian vs. Pagan war which led to a huge civil war. The tribes that had both fought against and with Rome - particularly groups like the foederati - (federation) who were paid up foreign soldiers/mercanaries from all over took advantage to pursue their own destinies and ethnic power bases/ nationhood -and Rome came under pressure - but the Romans pulled through by moving their troops back (leaving Britain undefended - to be invaded by the Angles (English) and Saxons (English who came from Germany) - which then in Britain initiated the ‘great struggle‘ which really literally in many ways continues to this day
And was recognised by the Irish in the war of independence which is why they referred to the English invaders as ‘Huns‘
Also - which is why Glastonbury has its importance and the Battle of the Beanfield (recent) has Celtic significance for the British against the English/London power base
The best way to follow the Roman empire continuation is through the succession of the Papal leaders and the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire
There were of course the Lombardians, the Franks etc, the establishment of all the Duchies etc,
but by the time of Pope Hadrian the son of a Roman noblemen he could call on Charlemagne (A Frank) who defeated the Lombards who had invaded Italy and then proclaimed himself the King of the Lombards and was crowned by Pope Leo III.
His three titles were;
Rex Francorum (King of the Franks)
Rex Longobardorum (King of the Lombards)
Imperator Romanorum (Emperor of the Romans
Today he is regarded not only as the founding father of both French and German monarchies, but also as a Pater Europae (father of Europe) his empire united most of Western Europe for the first time since the Romans, and the Carolingian renaissance encouraged the formation of a common European identity.
Because of their existing political associations in countries like Spain and Portugal and Britain which they subsequently strengthened. Rome established power bases all over - by this time the weren’t going round calling each other Claudius and centurions of course - ! but the institutions they had created were intact and remained powerful - which is why Catholicism (whatever you think of the religion) in power-political terms cannot be underestimated. And they were to continue colonisation infact throughout Latin America, Mexico, Europe and Africa and ideologically in places like Ireland in subsequent centuries - just as they had first done in Europe and Britain. There was no extinguishing of the Roman project since the early Popes were kind of like warlords - and very effective too as they furthered Catholicism and church (their) control - (which is the point on which I agree with Introcluse - )
They had to allow or get used to the idea of the nation states - but these ethnic geographical cultural differences had been just as great pre-Constantine as they were with Pope Gregory 1 and the so-called ‘Gothic Kings’ and even lasted subsequently. the church was shrewd - was this a good thing? They converted the Saxons - but theres no denying that Germanic WASP strain was always Protestant in nature which emerged in Lutherism - the Italians and Germans are different..
Infact earlier Bede an English monk historian (German desc.) in the seventh century when the Angles ansd Saxons were taking over who hated the British (celt) seems to have been a co-conspirator with Pope Gregory 1 who sought to have a foot in both camps - and who reported on English child slaves in Rome as Angles/Angels as a way of converting the English invaders of subRomanBritain to Christianity - that’s how clever they were. Still didn’t stop the wars between the Britons and English but it secured the long term presence of Rome over both to secure Britain under the Papacy. Clever Machiavellian tactic.
Till Henry 8th - a Welshman who claimed a (third degree probably spurious descent from the ancient Britons and who established the Church of England with himself as head. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Reformation
I always think somehow that this was really the beginning of the British Empire - round about that time - expansion, wars, the slave trade maybe I’m wrong but it seems an important change as its own empire.
Henry became King in 1509.
It also seems to mark the end of the Roman Empire with the fall of Constantinople when the Turk Sultan Mehmet I http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmed_II defeated Constantine XI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_XI
At the Fall of Constantinople in 1453.
Infact just prior to the Roman civil wars leading to 324
fearing for his life Constantine who really established Christianity in Rome fled to Britain - he was pursued but escaped his pursuers by cutting the legs or the flanks of the horses at each staging post so they couldn’t follow him. In Britain he fought the Scots with the help of the Scots.
And if you want to get a really revealing insight into the uses of imperialism and both coercion, slavery, genocide and resistance to it study the (first?) ‘walled’ buffer state of the Antonine/Hadrians wall area where the great William Wallace as well as many other warriors were from this which I’ll send you if you are interested. Ken Darks work is particularly interesting. The ‘dark ages’ isn’t really the dark ages - as there is quite a bit of literature on it which revisionist establishment historians have made a weak job of discrediting but which historians like Bromwich and Dark and others have done much to restore and whose account to me sounds far more thoroughly researched.
With regard to Britain its more properly these days referred to as sub Roman Britain - where great slaughter the Angles and Saxons invaded from German y and where great slaughter took place until the Britons rallied under the flag of the red dragon (Wales) - study then the centuries of colonial struggle and attempted genocide in Wales and how this struggle continues to this day - hence the recent hunger strikes in Cornwall and the division between a Celtic Britain and England - and the formation of socialism from Wales where socialism had its strongest power base - the colonial struggles of the Welsh, (Waelas is self determination for Kernow - NOT English the IRA/xx links etc the hatred between the west and the East ) but there is plenty of documentation for this which I’ll send you if you are interested.
The Royal family for instance havc their power base in the Germanic sax gotherberg dynasty which is why they make such a big show of calling themselves Lords of these areas.
Rome established its base with the Holy Roman Catholic church based in Rome and holding sway in Britain (till Henry and the Reformation), in Spain, France etc. and these institutions were established and enshrined in power structures.
Remember - that if you are talking about the history of Rome -it’s the history of Europe with perhaps two main ethnic power bases on the continent itself Rome and Germany vying for power - and then breaking up into vying powers co-operating or at war to carve up the colonies - but invariably with the aid of the church as an overseer. They colonised with a gun in one hand and a Bible in the other as it is said. Ethnic differences remained a constant and were expressed in religious disputes. German/English/Protestant WASP culture or Latin/Celtic/Gallic/Catholic. The Irish struggle was also the Battle of the Boyne, William of Orange, and the opposite of that.
Republicanism helped unite the two faiths into a revolutionary force as far as Ireland was concerned which at least identified the enemy of monarchism - though not the Pope - which., to a degree, blindsided Irish Republicanism.
And these were far deeper than flags of convenience.
Whereas the west over the water had stronger Celtic links but also had power bases in France particularly which exist to this day and are still areas of disputed self determination.
11-23-2011, 11:51 AM
RE: At the risk of sounding ridiculous..
Just as an addition, though if you follow the links it explains it. The Franks and others wanted to control Rome and the 'Roman' project further consolidated through the church and subsequent imperial endeavours, but there seemed to always be that difference between the Germanic (Lutheran) temperament and the Italian with, for example that ongoing dispute of the Thirty Years War.
So ? The EU as a German,Italian, project? An idea of the greater empire?