Demson
-
Posts
86 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Demson
-
-
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?
-
USA
Russia
China
North Korea
Britain
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'd say the answer is no, but I would be open to hear your argument as to how it could be viewed as such.
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.
A failure as it relates to a grand scale. No large scale communist nations exist or have ever existed in the true sense of the word.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?
-
Which is exactly why Communism is a failure. In order to be a success, communism must have uniform agreement. When it does not, even a detractor who is exiled from the society as a whole still creates ripples within the fabric of the system. Dictatorial government through elite party enforcement is what really occurs. There is no such thing as true marxist communism outside of small cult groups scattered around. Even then, there is generally a leader or 2 or several who tend to move out in front of the entire group.
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.
-
If you were in true community with 6 people, what would happen if you one day needed an electrician? A 7th person.
A doctor?
An 8th person.
A seamstress?
A 9th person.
What if I can be perfectly happy with those 6 people?
If you get to pick the six people, you might be ok. But what if I got to pick the 6 people for you? Would you rather take your chances with my stacked deck of six people or a more randomized grouping of 200 million?The situation you describe would be the opposite of my conditional collectivism.
We live in communities, but we are not communal people. I raise my kids. You raise yours. I work every day and keep not only what I need, but the extra I end up with at the end of the day. You do the same. Prior to the rise of the city system, the community worked together to raise children and the the community all worked and contributed to the common good. They feasted together and they starved together. Today, I might feast while my neighbor starves.Yes.
I am not saying which system is better. I am saying that human kind as a whole once had one system and now has another.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.
If communism would be good between two people, why would it not be good between 200 million? The system either works or it does not. The numbers involved should not make a difference, beyond bringing the best or worst elements of the system into sharper focus.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.
Secondly, you say "Human existence is based on individualism, we're a very a-social race."Prior to roughly 1500 on the common era, human existence was basically based on community living. The community worked together to improve the community. The rise of cities over the last 1,000 years or so, has created the individualism of what you speak. (There were cities and individualism prior to 1500, but I am saying that the move toward individualism accelerated around 1500. We can argue about the exact date of that acceleration. I select 1500, or 1492 really, based on the "discovery" of a certain lost mariner. Another good argument could be made for the late 1700s and the events of revolutions in America and France.)
If humans have existed for at least 1 million years, which is safely inside the range accepted by most science, then for 99.95 percent of human history, we were community-orientated, or "communal" rather than individually orientated.
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.
-
No this site is about Rome. There may be an ancient Greece site in the future, but as explained in another thread, it is a long way off.
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..!
Historical Jesus Found!
in Templum Romae - Temple of Rome
Posted
...
God I love history.
I did a google to be sure - it doesn't seem to be a hoax.