182
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 11:
Line 11: +
no edit summary
Do we really need weird stuff like some historian says the empire was never strong? The Parthian Empire rested on their eastern border for centuries. Famous Empires of Greece, Egypt, and Carthage no longer existed because Rome conquered them. This statement of weakness seems like POV that should be removed. We're not Wikipedia. We don't have to include views of "historians" who take controversial positions to gain notoriety for themselves. Just my thoughts. What do other editors think? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:34, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Do we really need weird stuff like some historian says the empire was never strong? The Parthian Empire rested on their eastern border for centuries. Famous Empires of Greece, Egypt, and Carthage no longer existed because Rome conquered them. This statement of weakness seems like POV that should be removed. We're not Wikipedia. We don't have to include views of "historians" who take controversial positions to gain notoriety for themselves. Just my thoughts. What do other editors think? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:34, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:i concur.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:i concur.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::I looked at the cite and changed it accordingly. If you've read Luttwak, he's hardly "some historian." Rather, he's a historian and military strategist ''par excelance'', but the previous author's explanation of Luttwak's argument was false. Luttwak didn't say that Rome was never strong; just that it wasn't strong ENOUGH to take on the barbarians at any point in its history. Rather, it avoided the issue, but could only run so far. Other than that, I would not tamper with the citation. Luttwak is a very well respected historian.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 17:39, 7 May 2007 (EDT)