RonPrice Posted December 22, 2004 Report Share Posted December 22, 2004 THE GENUINE ARTICLE ...those men, heads of the most powerful state that existed....did not find any legitimate legal titles with which to designate their right to the exercise of power...they did not know the basis on which they ruled....at the end of the whole thousand-year process which is Rome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted December 22, 2004 Report Share Posted December 22, 2004 Um. Well, I'm not sure anything held together by military conquest can truly be considered legitimate. I don't think that's even the point, though, to be blunt. Given the time and place, you conquer or are conquered. What matters is how well you govern, and what legacy you leave. On both accounts I think the Romans have a better record than many imperial powers that came before or after. If Rome's Italian allies wanted to overthrow Rome, they could have sided with Hannibal. But they didn't. They saw Rome as the least of all possible evils. Enough said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PVarro Posted June 19, 2006 Report Share Posted June 19, 2006 To be honest here, I can't stand the modern day philosophy that war is evil and it shouldn't ever happen. Because for centuries before this mentality came about men and armies were waging war. They had the means, and often did, discuss and solve their problems peacefully; but they also knew when enough was enough and it was time to make an example, right a wrong, ect. Instead, today people will try and talk it out and when that doesn't work talk some more. Personally, I think things worked better back then. PVarro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil25 Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 Surely power is the only and ultimate legitimacy? Politics will not permit vacuum and powerful states or individuals will always move in to fill it. hence empires grow. We change the terminology, and the mechanism of imperialism today is economic rather than military - but it still exists. If you look at the C18th-C19th, the empires that grew up then did not exist in some utopia where it was a choice as to whether (say) India was dominated by Britain, or independent. If Britain had not acted, the France or Spain would have done. As Mughal power evaporated it was never an option that others would not intervene. The Mediterranean in the era of the rise of Rome was similar. Rome had to fight for her own independence and in a way gained the empire by accident in the process. (I don't argue that too seriously, but it's not untrue). Terminology masks reality, but only power speaks. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosmo Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 I think it's not about the legitimacy of roman conquest, but about the legitmacy of roman emperors and this is a very important thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rameses the Great Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 The Romans were master munipulators, and knew who to deal with and how to deal with. They would ally with Germans if the Celts became to strong and vice-versa. In order to have a long lasting empire you have to deal with internal and external events. For example Caser was assassinated in his attempt to become dictator of Rome. Also Rome's alliance with Egypt agianst Assyria and the Hittite kingdom was a political and internal issue. You must deal with your own problems before you conquest others. If you just do things based on force then that is not really a civilized empire, just maurading bands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosmo Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 Ramses you're making some errors. The hitites and Assyria were long gone before Rome was important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rameses the Great Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 Ramses you're making some errors. The hitites and Assyria were long gone before Rome was important. Yes I know, I meant the Seleucid and Ptolomaic kingdoms, I apologize for the confusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caius Maxentius Posted July 16, 2006 Report Share Posted July 16, 2006 THE GENUINE ARTICLE ...those men, heads of the most powerful state that existed....did not find any legitimate legal titles with which to designate their right to the exercise of power...they did not know the basis on which they ruled....at the end of the whole thousand-year process which is Rome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonPrice Posted June 28, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2008 THE GENUINE ARTICLE ...those men, heads of the most powerful state that existed....did not find any legitimate legal titles with which to designate their right to the exercise of power...they did not know the basis on which they ruled....at the end of the whole thousand-year process which is Rome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonPrice Posted June 28, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2008 (edited) THE GENUINE ARTICLE ...those men, heads of the most powerful state that existed....did not find any legitimate legal titles with which to designate their right to the exercise of power...they did not know the basis on which they ruled....at the end of the whole thousand-year process which is Rome Edited June 28, 2008 by RonPrice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.