OOoooh, that's a toughie. Historical mistakes nearly always annoy me. Having said that:
1) St.Francis did not write the Servant's Prayer ("make me a channel of Thy peace"). But it is a prayer worthy of the great Saint. 2) The defence of "superior orders" was used by some or all of the defendants at the Nuremberg Trial. (It had been ruled out by the laws establishing the Tribunal itself, but in a sense the whole trial was about "superior orders", given that Hitler was not present.) 3) The Roman Empire was aggressively militant and dedicated to constant expansion. (Pretty much the opposite is the case. However, the Romans themselves sedulously fostered this mystique of the Roman military nature.) 4) Britain had an Empire. (The United Kingdom settled and conquered not one but several areas large enough to be called empires, but they were never contiguous and united to it in the way that great empires from Rome to Russia grew.) 5) Napoleon fell at Waterloo. (Every historian agrees that the Waterloo campaign had no hope; even if Napoleon had defeated the English and the Prussians, he would still have had to deal with overwhelming forces from other European powers. His real downfall was at Leipzig in 1814, especially disastrous since he passed up the possibility of a compromise that would have kept him with much of his German and Italian conquests.)
3) The Roman Empire was aggressively militant and dedicated to constant expansion. (Pretty much the opposite is the case. However, the Romans themselves sedulously fostered this mystique of the Roman military nature.) Sorry, I'm not getting this. Surely all their conquests were not by accident? (I'm being a bit sarcastic, here, because I can't help this joke, but I'm genuinely puzzled).
Once Rome had conquered the Italian peninsula, she was simply the biggest and strongest beast in the entire Mediterranean. The rest of the story is simply the result of successive entanglements in many different local issues and crises. The Roman army was certainly exceptionally skilful, but not more skilful or valiant than that of many enemies; the point was simply that there was a lot of them. You have to think in terms of the limits of the time. Pyrrhus and Hannibal, invading Italy, had the same problem as people who invaded Russia in modern times did: no matter how many battles they won and how many armies they destroyed, they could never manage to occupy all the enemy territory, and they kept on finding new armies raised against them. In the single day of Cannae, Hannibal killed 73,000 Romans - a figure worthy of the First World War; yet, within three weeks, the surviving consul had managed, by emergency enlistment, to raise 40,000 more. That is what possessing the Italian Peninsula meant.
Do you really think Carthaginians stood no chance? E.g. if they avoided very direct confrontation and first devoted themselves to securing Spain or getting hold of the East (Egypt)? Of course it's a mere speculation, but interesting because after beating Carthagine, Rome was left really with no competitors in the Mediterranian.
The other - more simplistic - answer to this would be: the Roman Empire was relatively peacufel and mainle devoted to defence of its (vast) realm. Which was created by quite aggressive Roman Republic... Oversimplification, but not so great...
Italy Paris the Great Barrier Reef and the Queensland beaches and rainforest Greece The USA, especially the west - mountains, deserts, Grand Canyon, etc.
This will have to be quirky, because there are far more than five books that need reading, in my opinion. The poems of Rabindranath Tagore Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind by Hayao Miyazaki (comic book version). The Bible Bleak House by Charles Dickens According to which language you can read, one of the following: - Dante in Italian - Shakespeare in English - Goethe in German - Virgil in Latin
Only five? Ah well... Growing ignorance and diminishing standards of learning and of intellectual honesty. Ridiculous overrating of sex. Ridiculous denial of the importance of the differences between the sexes. Relativism. Bad taste.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-01-15 05:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-15 05:13 pm (UTC)1) St.Francis did not write the Servant's Prayer ("make me a channel of Thy peace"). But it is a prayer worthy of the great Saint.
2) The defence of "superior orders" was used by some or all of the defendants at the Nuremberg Trial. (It had been ruled out by the laws establishing the Tribunal itself, but in a sense the whole trial was about "superior orders", given that Hitler was not present.)
3) The Roman Empire was aggressively militant and dedicated to constant expansion. (Pretty much the opposite is the case. However, the Romans themselves sedulously fostered this mystique of the Roman military nature.)
4) Britain had an Empire. (The United Kingdom settled and conquered not one but several areas large enough to be called empires, but they were never contiguous and united to it in the way that great empires from Rome to Russia grew.)
5) Napoleon fell at Waterloo. (Every historian agrees that the Waterloo campaign had no hope; even if Napoleon had defeated the English and the Prussians, he would still have had to deal with overwhelming forces from other European powers. His real downfall was at Leipzig in 1814, especially disastrous since he passed up the possibility of a compromise that would have kept him with much of his German and Italian conquests.)
no subject
Date: 2006-01-15 07:51 pm (UTC)Sorry, I'm not getting this. Surely all their conquests were not by accident?
(I'm being a bit sarcastic, here, because I can't help this joke, but I'm genuinely puzzled).
no subject
Date: 2006-01-15 08:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-15 11:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-16 09:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-15 11:39 pm (UTC)Which was created by quite aggressive Roman Republic...
Oversimplification, but not so great...
no subject
Date: 2006-01-16 09:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-15 05:16 pm (UTC)Intelligence.
Kindness.
Putting up with me (takes some effort).
A lively and enthusiastic temper.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-15 05:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-15 07:00 pm (UTC)Paris
the Great Barrier Reef and the Queensland beaches and rainforest
Greece
The USA, especially the west - mountains, deserts, Grand Canyon, etc.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-15 06:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-15 07:03 pm (UTC)The poems of Rabindranath Tagore
Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind by Hayao Miyazaki (comic book version).
The Bible
Bleak House by Charles Dickens
According to which language you can read, one of the following:
- Dante in Italian
- Shakespeare in English
- Goethe in German
- Virgil in Latin
no subject
Date: 2006-01-15 07:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-15 08:18 pm (UTC)Growing ignorance and diminishing standards of learning and of intellectual honesty.
Ridiculous overrating of sex.
Ridiculous denial of the importance of the differences between the sexes.
Relativism.
Bad taste.