For you conservatives Mr. Clinton had the deficet down and our country was at a surplus that W has wasted with his idiotic, selfish war. Rome started her decline when she overstepped her political and social bounds and tried to force their way of life on other people

Well, that's still just a variation of good vs. evil, right?

Depends on who you ask.

For you conservatives Mr. Clinton had the deficet down and our country was at a surplus that W has wasted with his idiotic, selfish war. Rome started her decline when she overstepped her political and social bounds and tried to force their way of life on other people

 

Really?

 

Please elucidate, I am curious as to which specific examples you have in mind.

For you conservatives Mr. Clinton had the deficet down and our country was at a surplus that W has wasted with his idiotic, selfish war. Rome started her decline when she overstepped her political and social bounds and tried to force their way of life on other people.

 

 

 

Really?

 

Please elucidate, I am curious as to which specific examples you have in mind.

 

This should be fun!

I'm very aware of PepRocks knowledge of history.

Springsteen#1, balls in your court.

Cahill's thesis was that Rome imploded when it ran out of tax collecters. What say you PepRock?

In 55 BC Caesar invaded Britain while this was not a total victory it gave the Romans a foothold on the Island, seems kind of familiar, in 43 AD Claudius set up a permanent Roman pressance by invading with 40,000 troops which I would imagine was a great deal at this time,but this is not the strangest coincidence see Claudius went in for the protection of the Celtic people it seems he was asked by a local chieftain to help against a rival tribe. As the fighting continued it separated into a religious battle for the celts as they saw their gods and way of life being destroyed by the Roman invaders, They rose up led by a warrior priestess named Boudica, but were unable to defeat the Roman numbers,but, the Romans never forgot this war they were tired of fighting for the rich, so in the late 300's and early 400's the will to stop the barbarian invasions were not there,the true Romans knew that their leaders were wrong and would not fight for them so the army used the same barbarians to fight and as history shows if its not yours why fight for it.MSU class of 88

This should be fun!

I'm very aware of PepRocks knowledge of history.

Springsteen#1, balls in your court.

 

Looks like Springsteen returned serve. LOL

Looks like Springsteen returned serve. LOL

I'll calmly wait for PR's response.

Seriously, PR is the only guy I know of that has such a vast knowledge of history except for a friend of mine, my friend I would put up against anyone in knowledge of history. It's his livelihood.

BTW, I wasn't slamming Springsteen, I was serious when I said this could be fun. I love history!

And let's not forget the ravaging barbarians that have been trying to invade, pillage, and take our lands. And of course, communication is no better today than it was for the Roman Empire, so we're most definitely doomed. And really, when are the human gladiatorial events going to return, because the current death penalties just aren't any fun (this part I'm actually a bit more serious about than the other sarcastic remarks... uh-oh, lack of morals! Because killing just wasn't around in the glory days of the Roman Empire).

 

What? You do not believe that the infrastructure of the United States is decaying?

I'll calmly wait for PR's response.

Seriously, PR is the only guy I know of that has such a vast knowledge of history except for a friend of mine, my friend I would put up against anyone in knowledge of history. It's his livelihood.

BTW, I wasn't slamming Springsteen, I was serious when I said this could be fun. I love history!

 

I was assuming that PR was a history major, or teacher and you felt you had Springsteen at a disadvantage. Seems like Springsteen knows a bit on the subject as well. Just friendly banter.

In 55 BC Caesar invaded Britain while this was not a total victory it gave the Romans a foothold on the Island, seems kind of familiar, in 43 AD Claudius set up a permanent Roman pressance by invading with 40,000 troops which I would imagine was a great deal at this time,but this is not the strangest coincidence see Claudius went in for the protection of the Celtic people it seems he was asked by a local chieftain to help against a rival tribe. As the fighting continued it separated into a religious battle for the celts as they saw their gods and way of life being destroyed by the Roman invaders, They rose up led by a warrior priestess named Boudica, but were unable to defeat the Roman numbers,but, the Romans never forgot this war they were tired of fighting for the rich, so in the late 300's and early 400's the will to stop the barbarian invasions were not there,the true Romans knew that their leaders were wrong and would not fight for them so the army used the same barbarians to fight and as history shows if its not yours why fight for it.MSU class of 88

 

 

It took me a moment to figure out where you were going with this, so pardon the delay in my response. Before I continue I commend you on your knowledge of history. Adding the dates was of use here as well, and for that I thank you.

 

Indeed, Julius Caesar invaded Celtic Britain prior to his involvement in the war of the Triumvirate. 40,000 was not huge for that time, at Cannae in 216 BC the Roman Republic fielded an army 86,000 strong against Hannibal(of which 70,000 were killed). To be specific, where you say: “the Romans never forgot this war they were tired of fighting for the rich, so in the late 300's and early 400's the will to stop the barbarian invasions were not there,the true Romans knew that their leaders were wrong and would not fight for them so the army used the same barbarians,” is this your opinion or something you found. Because I can come up with a number of other interpretations taking into account the time frame and the dramatic events that categorized the end of the Julio-Claudian emperors and the time into 300-400 AD. I would daresay, in this same vein that the defeat of Roman arms at Cannae eventually had more to do with the fall of the Empire in the long run as Hannibal ravaged the countryside and drove the small farmers into the city. The larger landowners then purchased their land at a steal and then became wealthier. This wealth translated into the private armies that men such as Pompey, Julius Caesar and Crassus were able to raise and command. Of course the dramatic number of landless men were easily enticed with the promises of the military service (post Marian reforms 107 B.C), especially with the promise of land at the end of their 25 year service. Not to mention the “on the job” benefits of loot and rape for the soldiers considering the nature of warfare.

 

The eventual fate of those, for those who did not join the Roman Army, was as one of the mob(for lack of a better term) in Rome who’s votes were always pandered to by the Senate and the power brokers such as Sulla, Marius, Pompey, Crassus, and Julius Caesar. This was notable as only Roman citizens within the confines of Rome could vote. If they were at Nova Carthago in the Iberian peninsula, they were ineligible to vote. That aside these men were oft persuaded by promises of free bread, which was common even into the Imperial age (as the Senate was still around, just lacking in power for the most part). The promise of said handouts with only being required to vote in order to get them went a long way in making the Roman populace indifferent to the affairs of state and their stake in it.

 

Far be it from me to call you incorrect but none of the sources I have seen have portrayed Boudica as a priestess of any sort. Most of the ones that I have read actually refer to her as the wife of the king of the Iceni, a people who were autonomous allies of Rome. He died and since he had no sons the Romans ignored the Celtic custom of allowing women to rule and annexed their lands and called in on all loans made to the Iceni people. That would indicate a dynastic and economic reason for the rebellion, not a religious one.

 

You stated:

Rome started her decline when she overstepped her political and social bounds and tried to force their way of life on other people

 

Not for nothing, but it would seem to me that in this particular instance you are referring to the social issues within the states that people of a less conservative bent tend to decry whenever the conservatives attempt to legislate something to address what they feel to be an issue. Now taking that and my response into account it strikes me as though your response does not directly address the issue at hand. I can only assume that you were referring to the situation in Iraq with your mini-dissertation on the activities of the Roman’s in Celtic Britain. Not that I am by any means being difficult on the matter I am merely trying to extrapolate the meaning of the two quotes in relation to each other.

 

 

For what its worth, Bellarmine University Class of '05.

John Waddey originally printed in his My Point Of View column in First Century Christian (Link to Article) an article titled Death Of Our Nation. In the article he compares our nation to the Roman Empire just before the fall. He states many points in which we are akin to many of the ancient civilizations who have fallen.

 

 

Namely:

• The decay and collapse of the family.
  
  
• Drastic decline in their national birth rate.
  
  
• Obsession with violent and degrading sports and entertainment.
  
  
• Collapse of the moral standards of society.
  
  
• An enormous national debt with unreasonably heavy taxation.
  
  
• Dependence on foreigners to produce their food and goods, run their businesses and fill the ranks of their military.
  
  
• Years of unresolved internal strife and conflict.

Waddey states "the seven items listed above, which America is now burdened with, technology cannot resolve. Only by a national awakening and return to our spiritual and cultural roots can we hope to survive."

You forgot to mention attacks and invasions by barbarians.

 

My question after looking at the above is, Who's in more trouble? America or Europe?

You forgot to mention attacks and invasions by barbarians.

 

My question after looking at the above is, Who's in more trouble? America or Europe?

Great thread 2C... :thumb:

 

It's been over 200 years since America needed a whole lot of help from anyone in Europe. I would contend however, that without America, Europe would have been doomed long ago.

 

The greatest mistake America has made is giving too much credence to those within our borders with an anti-Christian, anti-Religion agenda.

 

We've twisted the first amendment to become something the founders never intended it to be. As a result, we've kicked God (as a welcome guest) out of our schools and public places. We've denigrated the sancity of human life. We've opened our minds so far that our brains have fallen out.

 

There are such things as absolute right and wrong. It is not sensible to give every voice and opinion equal standing. Some things are good and productive, others are wicked and destructive.

 

It's time for the good people of this great land to stand up and say, "Enough! We're not going down this path any longer."

 

Unfortunately, it will take something 100 times worse than 9/11 for folks to open their eyes and truly see.

Fastbreak, interesting thoughts.

 

A few questions:

 

How can we be a country that protects the freedom to practice whatever religion one desires, without protecting the right to not practice religion?

 

Doesn't the current state of things in Iraq indicate that we do need Europe? I mean, we asked for their help in planning the action. We can't do what needs to be done in Iraq without their help.

 

Your post makes me wonder what more you mean to say. Should we eschew relationships with other countries? Wouldn't that be counter-productive in many ways?

 

As to what the "Father" of our country thought:

 

As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government.

I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality

. -- George Washington

 

 

As to your comment about absolute right and wrong. Who decides?

Being somehwat familiar with the Queen Boadicea event, I would add that Rome had decided to pull back her forces and not commit anymore to England due to commitments elsewhere in the empire. This of course was one of the reasons for the savage destruction of London (Londinium) by Boadicea: The Romans were largely unable to defend it.