Demson

... God I love history. I did a google to be sure - it doesn't seem to be a hoax.

One of the key aspects in my understanding of the Celts was their religious zeal. Personally, I believe the afterlife was a big, huge thing in Celtic society. It's hard to tell how exactly it influenced them, with all the 19th century fables. It might have been to prove their worth for a place in 'heaven'. It might have been to prove their worth for a passage to a next life. They seemed to believe in re-incarnation so the latter is most plauble; failure to do so means you'll just have to try again. Which could explain why such superstitious Celts were so overly worried about leaving behind a good heritage Think of the heroic ideal. Think of the way religion, druids and magic influenced day-to-day life. It makes sense, doesn't it? It's one of the things what makes a Celt different from a Roman. While a Roman tries to prove his worth by survival, a Celt tries to prove his worth by dying with a sword in his hand...!

'So you mean this sharf that looks remarkably allot like a pebble is actually a piece of Celtic pottery dating from the early bronze age instead of it being of Anglo-Saxon origin, thus confirming what we knew already?' - the presentator, after 6 men spending three rainy days digging in a backyard. Seriousily, I think they're very skilled and enthausiatic about what they do. I'm looking forward to hearing about their results.

Hey! What's wrong with evil? I'll begin my statement with two examples: Rome brought aquaducts, roads, sanitation at the cost of slavery. Rome brought peace through the rule of the countless of Legions, a fighting force more ruthless then most tribal barbarians all together. My point? As usual, I find it almost too easy to label Rome 'good' or 'bad'. Good to who? Bad to what? Both sides usually have grounded reasons to believe Rome was either one or another. I like to see the Roman era as an ancient petridish of our current humanity. It had to deal with allot of factors we have to deal with now, but technologically less complicated. There's allot we could learn from them. I wonder what people will think of us Westerners in 2000 years from now?

Don't forget Israel. They were third on the list, if I remember correctly. Italy never was in the front line of the Cold War. I'm not sure if they had good reasons to rebuild their military after WW II. Their military is probably fine on domestic defense and small-scale operations. But for a large task force? Just an assumption of course.

Simple. You almost never hear from Italy through the media. Probably because it has no serious influence on your region/country. That doesn't neccesarily mean they're economically not important - just not directly.

I'll keep it short. Taxes (*spits*). Everybody sacrifises some of their wealth to the commonwealth, which will benifit everyone, not just yourself. It's the taxpayer's money that has made most of our wealthfare possible. It's just one view of many. It can be written of, or seen as a truth. If, in 100,000 years from now, a new governing ideology emerges in a galaxic society which is statistically 1000 times more succesful then our current world... Will our Western democacy been a failure too?

In that mindset, democracy is a failure too. For democacy to be a success, every citizen must be involved with the governing. But it is actually the rule of the majority. Thing is - democacy doesn't have to be perfect for it to succeed. And neither does communism/collectivism (not neccesarily Marxist). Question - isn't our current Western democracy a form of collectivism? So yes - I believe in collectivism and communism... To a certain extend.

What if I can be perfectly happy with those 6 people? The situation you describe would be the opposite of my conditional collectivism. Yes. And I am saying that conditional collectivism could be very benificial. What are we trying to argue again? Or has all the beer and years of ranting with Drusilla finally gotten to me?

I love this. To me numbers make a difference. Tell me - are you more at ease with choosing to sacrifise your individuality for a team of 6 trusted friends, or having to share your property with 200 million strangers? Conditional is the key word here. Being forced to life a collective life has a big chance of failure. This changes when you can choose for it. We still live in communities. We are communal beings. But when ***** hits the fan - our instincts will tell us to choose whatever is the most benificial to yourself. Human loyalty is conditional. Now ants are true communal beings. They life and die for the sake of the community. Their loyalty is unconditional.

OMG, MOON"S A COMMIE! *ahem* Communism as a political system is afront to human nature. Communism as a conditional agreement between people would rawk. It's very paradoxal, really. Human existence is based on individualism, we're a very a-social race. Growing up in a collective will change the identity of being a human. Which means trouble. You can't educate your instincts, you know. But if we can choose for such an existense volunteerly and under certain conditions, it could work out very well. I have a practical example in mind - I'll see if I can find some sources of information.

I wonder - where those 180,000 Celts warriors real fighters or just farmers with weapons? If the latter is true - the Roman legionaires would probably have won anyway. Remember that they were battle-hardened veterans who knew how to deal with the tension of combat. If you haven't ever fought with weapons before, you have a serious disdvantage. Especially at the scale of Alesia. At 180 AD - the heyday of the Celts were over. The Celtic traditinal society was stumbling when the conflict with the Romans arose. I'm not sure how the Celts would have ended up even if they weren't conquered by the Roman legions. That said - although allot of credit can be given to Caeser... He also ran into a lot of luck. It wasn't just his capabilities. If Vercengetorix was more strategically and tactically minded, the Celts would have had a better chance. If it wasn't for Caesar - I don't think the Romans could have made it that far. But that's easy to say now, isn't it? I mean - dimensional martians could have popped up and blown everybody to oblivian. It was a possibility, right? Fact is - the Romans owned the Celts. Even if it was marginal BTW - I'm going for 'a better strategy'. If the Celts had the better strategy, they of course would have won

Uniform looks cool. Neats a bit of wear and dirt for that 'evil veteran'-look though.

Which thread is it then?

It's a shame.

Maybe someone got bored of his golden tooth and wanted something different.

You did join up with a re-enactment club, right? Not some sort of paramilitary warband?

That's probably more clothing then I have in my closset, lol. Pretty neat... Though where's the rifle?

Same here.

Awesome. The Civil War is - in my opinion - one of the most intrueging parts of American history. Keep it up...!

Sheesh, why do I have to keep signing up with you people...? Stop pestering me already! But serious - it's a quite a show you are running here. Very impressive, keep up the good work..!