nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
13,818
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 13:
Line 13: + + +
More talking
::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 take issue with the 'par excelance'. Even wikipedia, our liberal foil, states that he's not an expert in the field and enjoys writing provacative works to stir up the pot. I question why we give him a prominent audience. I fear it may mislead readers who are counting on us to present the body of thought as it has coalesced over time. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:06, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
: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)
: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)
::It may be a fascinating book and I'm not questioning that, but I'm not sure the view deserves any level of prominence when compared to the mainstream tried and true thought. We're giving reading room to a view that has never caught on and presenting it in a way that readers will not be able to tell the difference. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:06, 7 May 2007 (EDT)