Difference between revisions of "Talk:Roman Empire"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Rome was always weak?)
Line 8: Line 8:
  
 
:Ditto dude.  Damn law school.  My first love is & will always be Roman history.  Don't tell my girlfriend.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 00:12, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
 
:Ditto dude.  Damn law school.  My first love is & will always be Roman history.  Don't tell my girlfriend.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 00:12, 16 April 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)

Revision as of 15:34, 7 May 2007

This needs sooo much work its not even funny anymore

Could you help? I started this and Roman Republic but got swamped with law school work. PLEASE. Help!-AmesGyo! 21:24, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Great addition on engineering.-AmesGyo! 00:00, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

So much work still to be done though. Unfortunately I have schoolwork I should be doing now too.bomber23ktalk

Ditto dude. Damn law school. My first love is & will always be Roman history. Don't tell my girlfriend.-AmesGyo! 00:12, 16 April 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? Learn together 17:34, 7 May 2007 (EDT)