I read a really interesting argument once that the Roman Empire never dissappeared, but rather merely changed it's name and image.

The idea was that the formal power "the emperor", merely changed it's official title to "the pope" when the empire embraced christianity. (The emperor's claim to power having already been a religous one for centuries)

Meanwhile, the informal power -the network of powerfull families that traded the emperium/papacy back and forth- became what it still is today: the mafia.

Between the two, "Rome" still weilds considerable global power.

Just something to chew on,
Mike

 

**sits back and waits for Dr3d1zzl3 and FUNKED1 to show up for this one**

 

Umm...

The Souix, the Apache, the Iriquois, the Modoc, the Shoshone... ect.

(Arguably, the early Mormons, too)
Mike

 

See my post that needs bumping titled "Omg" plz kk thx.
Just remember:

 

dude i said stop eroding away all my tactics, if you keep this up i will have to drop the E off of my ETHUG

 

The Indian Wars of the 19th century were wars of conquest ending in near-total extermination of many nations, but that has little to do with current world events. Actually, the closest argument you could make is Texas.... but still no.

 

Three roman kids from the past agree!!!

 

 

It's important to remember, though, that MANY americans of the time considered that we were doing all that for the indian's benifit; to "bring them to civilization". (The fact that they didn't want to play "civilization" by our rules was lost on most.)



Hadn't even thought about Texas. If we'd been smarter, we might have let them go.

How about the Mormon state called "Desert". We sent in the cavalry and killed a bunch of people (white people, at that) because they wanted to set up their own country in the as-yet unclaimed west.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just enjoying the discussion...

(PS: I don't really think the the mafia is the legitimate inheritor of Rome's history, but there ARE some families that reappear in the histories of both. " The Borgias" for instance...
Mike

 

Regarding bringing the native americans into "civilization" we do exactly the same thing in political terms. We go wherever there is no Democracy in a place without military strength to stop us, and offer our brand of self-government to all who live there. Funny thing is, that choice is no choice at all- what average person, educated or not, would not choose the freedoms offered by democracy? The only opposition to it is the small fraction of whatever country (like Iraq) that stands to lose political power through the gaining of it by the general public. I guess the difference is we were wrong then and we are right now.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that we have always believed this, at any given point in amerian history. I certainly do hope that we're correct this time...

Only time can tell.

 

People choose freedom and power over being ruled pretty much every time. That's how we know we are right. It's one thing to cite immigration as an indicator; I prefer to cite defectors as a better one.

 

if anytning that is an example of how families gravitate towards power, be a gentic disposition or a desire to follow in family footsteps.

 

Good point.

Maybe that has something to do with what turns a republic into an empire: As the republic ages, a class of power-families emerges, who's goals (good or ill) are not always served by what is best for the voting masses.

Seems like a familliar situation...
(and this thread is nearly back on topic!)

M

 

Did you know that Dubya is a distant cousin of the Queen of England? It's true.