Ratboy

Rapture is aid.

That's what you inferred, not what I implied. I meant nothing more than what my words say. Any other meaning or intent is your own diviniation. If I'd meant anything else I would have said it.

No one said it, including me.

Wow, she should know better than to leave the Free Speech Zone.

Response deleted by Ratboy so this "discussion" will finally end.

I never said there was no resistance. I said that there were quite a few that didn't resist, because they knew they were better off as provinces of Rome, both financially and militarily. Egypt, Greece, Judea and Asia Minor are all examples. Yes, some did resist, as I agreed. The Gauls are a good example. Some fought to become Romans, or at least equal to Romans within the empire, so I wouldn't call that resistance. The Goths are a good example of this, as are the Vandals, who basically bought their way into Carthage nobility with the spoils from their crusade across North Africa to become Romans. There were also wars fought by Rome for glory or wealth that had nothing to do with trying to form a new province, like Cassius fighting the Parthians. I stand by my premise that most peoples of the region knew it was good to be Roman and therefore didn't resist when Rome made them a province. Of course, there were exceptions. None of this has anything to do with the current situation in Iraq and whether it's win-able, though.

If you call three a bunch, then I guess so.

Vandals, Visigoths and Ostrogoths offset the Huns and Gauls. Lower Britain offsets upper Britain. And that doesn't include any of the southern and eastern provinces. Thus, "for the most part".

I don't know if I would call my example poor, since I did qualify it with "for the most part".

Yep, the Gauls were definitely an exception, as were the Huns. Attila didn't want to be a Roman, he just wanted to roam the countryside raping and pillaging as his ancestors had done for centuries. Upper Britain was an exception as well. I believe a large amount of acquiesence to Romans was on the southern and eastern parts of the Mediterranian.

That's exactly what happened during the middle years of the Roman Empire. The newly conquered territories, for the most part, didn't put up much of a resistance because they knew they would be better off as a Roman province. Up until the Christian era, provinces were allowed to worship their own gods and have their own cultures as long as they paid taxes to the Empire and acknowledged the Roman gods. Even some of the barbarian tribes, specifically the Vandals and Visigoths, just wanted to be accepted as Romans.

Lots of examples from ancient/medieval history, not sure if they are relevant since the tech is so different now. * Rome in Britain, ultimately a stalemate * Saxons in Britain circa 700, stalemate * England in Scotland & Wales circa 1300, England ultimately won

I know what you were saying. I was confused about what you wrote.

"Dude, I'm so totally buzzed right now."

When the Christians leave me alone, I'll leave them alone. Until then, fair game like anyone else that tries to tell me how I should live my life.

joe is a fembot. you will mind this parenthetical boast or mount 50 other harems today.

Welcome to the Non Sequiter Club! Bananas are yellow.

Orwell was a hippy?

Buncha hippies.

That's not journalists, that's editors.

I am speechless.

The incestuousness of the 2000 election in Florida rightly raised many eyebrows and is a fine example of how our system can be manipulated (note, I said "can be", not "was"). But this is our problem, not the UN's, not other countries'. Everyone else should keep their nose out of it.

But that's lenin.