182
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 13:
Line 13: +
no edit summary
::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)
::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)
::::I only took issue with the "Rome was never strong".[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::I only took issue with the "Rome was never strong".[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:I fixed it further. The previous guy got the general idea of Luttwak right, but not fully. I recommend the book to anyone interested, though. Fascinating stuff.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 17:41, 7 May 2007 (EDT)