From: Dwayne (ddraig@pobox.com)
Date: Sun Mar 15 1998 - 22:41:36 MST
Anton Sherwood wrote:
>
> > The Christians murdered millions, buried the knowledge of the Romans and
> > maintained power (and stagnation) for nearly one millenium. The Dark Ages
> > were the worst time this planet has ever gone through.
>
> The knowledge of the Romans was generally borrowed from the Greeks; Rome
> was a conqueror, not an inventor.
This is not true. There are many things the Romans invented.
Sure, they borrowed a lot. All cultures do. But to say that
rome was not an inventor is a fallacy. The arch is a good
start. As was an effective civil service, factory production
lines, codified laws, etc. Greek civilisation was moribund and
stagnant by the times the Romans marched in. Rome is still an
example to the world. The fact that an empire so large was ruled
effectively for so long (the imperial period was the longest
continous peaceful period in Europe's history, by something like
a factor of 5) with such an incredibly slow communicatiosn system
suggests that they *did* invent something magnificent: how to
govern such a widespread, diverse and numerous body of people.
> It might be interesting to go back in time and prevent the rise of
> Christianity, but I doubt that would have saved the Empire from
> collapsing of its own tax structure.
This is true, rome had an economic structure based on continual
expansion. This is what killed it more so than tax structure,
that and environmental change. It is interesting to look at the
current economic ideology and it's reliance on continuous growth,
and consider the fate of the Romans.
> > .... The Americans didn't become a superpower
> > because they were so clever. They've earned a golden nose with both World
> > Wars, whereas the British Empire was eliminated as a superpower already
> > after WW I. The German economy didn't fare so well after WW II because the
> > politicians were so intelligent, but because it was greatly funded by the
> > US.
>
> Agree in part - but, you know, it wasn't by mere chance that Americans
> won the wars.
Of course not. They waited for the moment to jump in and attain
the maximum return for the minimum effort.
> Why didn't Brazil (for example), which had similar
> advantages of size and isolation, win them?
Brazil in no way had the industrial base of the US. What a silly
example.
> I like to think it's not *only* military power that makes Americana
> fashionable around the world ...
What on earth makes you think "americana" is *fashionable*??
American military prowess and money are *desired* around the
world, but "fashionable" "americana"??
I find it amusing in the extreme that a collection of people who
declare themselves anti-statist are defending the US so
vigorously...
Dwayne
--
return...to...the...source
ddraig@pobox.com
http://pobox.com/~ddraig
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:48:45 MST