Talk:Roman Empire

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Learn together (Talk | contribs) at 00:06, 8 May 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

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)

i concur.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.-Speaker 17:39, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
I only took issue with the "Rome was never strong".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. 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.-Speaker 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. Learn together 20:06, 7 May 2007 (EDT)