Open borders? I don’t recall that one. The borders were rather pliable, difficult to truly close and protect.Col Hogan wrote:
the constant Germanic invasion are “terrorist attacks”, I assume?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Open borders? I don’t recall that one. The borders were rather pliable, difficult to truly close and protect.Col Hogan wrote:
The transition from one form of government to another form after Julius crossed the Rubicon had a little bit to do with it... along with a hundred other factorsIbanez wrote:Open borders? I don’t recall that one. The borders were rather pliable, difficult to truly close and protect.Col Hogan wrote:
the constant Germanic invasion are “terrorist attacks”, I assume?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well said. Especially the last paragraph.CID1990 wrote:The transition from one form of government to another form after Julius crossed the Rubicon had a little bit to do with it... along with a hundred other factorsIbanez wrote:
Open borders? I don’t recall that one. The borders were rather pliable, difficult to truly close and protect.
the constant Germanic invasion are “terrorist attacks”, I assume?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Empire itself was much more cohesive when there was a common idea of what Rome was and how representative republican government benefited the average Roman citizen. The idea of being "Roman" had the same meaning to each Roman.
But as the benefits of being "Roman" waned the further away you got from Rome, then things began to become a bit unraveled. Rome's inability to control its borders did not cause a cultural shift but it absolutely led to the various times Rome was sacked.
Conversion to Christianity played a significant role. One of several things Gibbon got right. In fact, aside from the cultural norms of his day, Gibbon's work still stands as something of a benchmark, nearly 250 years on.
One of my favorite topics of discussion (when we like to apply our hubris by comparing the US with the Roman Empire) is the involuntary switch from the Republican to the Imperial systems in Rome, versus the voluntary abrogation of Congressional power to the Executive in the US. Some people would argue that we do in fact have an imperial presidency... as a matter of the actual structure of it. Rome had a vestigial Senate. We have a somewhat vestigial Congress.
Which one is supposed to be her?Skjellyfetti wrote:Wherever spanos is, i'm sure he's all over this...
A photograph of a Greta Thunberg lookalike from 1898 is sparking conspiracy theories that she's a time traveler
https://www.insider.com/greta-thunbergs ... qHchXSe8zU
Skjellyfetti wrote:Wherever spanos is, i'm sure he's all over this...
A photograph of a Greta Thunberg lookalike from 1898 is sparking conspiracy theories that she's a time traveler
https://www.insider.com/greta-thunbergs ... qHchXSe8zU
A time traveler from the future...120 years ago?"So, 'Greta Thunberg' is in a photo from 120 years ago, and it's my new favourite conspiracy," one Twitter user wrote. "Greta's a time traveller, from the future, and she's here to save us."
I took a philosophy class at UD on time travel. We watched a lot of movies. It begins to hurt your head if you really keep thinking about it.Skjellyfetti wrote:Not an expert on time travel, but I think the assumption is that time travel was not invented 120 years ago. Or now. If there is a time traveler... they're have to be from the future. I don't know why she would go back to the turn of the 20th century to pose for a photo in a field... but...
Maybe she went back to the 1800's to warn people off of eating red meat and using light bulbs? She's only here now because all previous attempts in previous eras failed to have people shun technology.Skjellyfetti wrote:Not an expert on time travel, but I think the assumption is that time travel was not invented 120 years ago. Or now. If there is a time traveler... they're have to be from the future. I don't know why she would go back to the turn of the 20th century to pose for a photo in a field... but...
Or she went back to the 1800's a successfully warned people to shun technology and as a result time travel was never invented and she never went back and then time travel was invented and she did go back and so on and so on. The Greta that appears in this timeframe is just a mistake and we're stuck in an infinite loop.GannonFan wrote:Maybe she went back to the 1800's to warn people off of eating red meat and using light bulbs? She's only here now because all previous attempts in previous eras failed to have people shun technology.Skjellyfetti wrote:Not an expert on time travel, but I think the assumption is that time travel was not invented 120 years ago. Or now. If there is a time traveler... they're have to be from the future. I don't know why she would go back to the turn of the 20th century to pose for a photo in a field... but...
I think it's Greta from a different Universe.UNI88 wrote:Or she went back to the 1800's a successfully warned people to shun technology and as a result time travel was never invented and she never went back and then time travel was invented and she did go back and so on and so on. The Greta that appears in this timeframe is just a mistake and we're stuck in an infinite loop.GannonFan wrote:
Maybe she went back to the 1800's to warn people off of eating red meat and using light bulbs? She's only here now because all previous attempts in previous eras failed to have people shun technology.
Glad to see that you loaded up on the tough classes, Hen.89Hen wrote:I took a philosophy class at UD on time travel. We watched a lot of movies. It begins to hurt your head if you really keep thinking about it.Skjellyfetti wrote:Not an expert on time travel, but I think the assumption is that time travel was not invented 120 years ago. Or now. If there is a time traveler... they're have to be from the future. I don't know why she would go back to the turn of the 20th century to pose for a photo in a field... but...
Time travel = not possible.
That's the equivalent of the losing team in football pointing to the fact that they outgained the team who actually won the game once you look at total yards. Got to look at the scoreboard that matters when it comes to winning and losing.Aho Old Guy wrote:
That's an anti-Z analogy. Well done.GannonFan wrote:That's the equivalent of the losing team in football pointing to the fact that they outgained the team who actually won the game once you look at total yards. Got to look at the scoreboard that matters when it comes to winning and losing.
89Hen wrote:That's an anti-Z analogy. Well done.GannonFan wrote:That's the equivalent of the losing team in football pointing to the fact that they outgained the team who actually won the game once you look at total yards. Got to look at the scoreboard that matters when it comes to winning and losing.
Col Hogan wrote: