Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (88936)	4/1/2003 7:58:14 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

> You can if the question is which you would rather live in. Ah, in that case I choose one that will be 2000 years from now :) > I'm not sure I understand what you mean but that. The Romans did whatever they needed to conquer. But by and large they relied upon themselves. After they'd capture a city, the very first thing they would do was to build a Roman Bath, a town Square, and barracks. The emphasis on the bath is significant. The Romans were trying to sell their life style to the local elite. The idea was that this changed culture would bring them closer to Rome and there will be fewer reasons for dissent. This is not unlike the American practice of "establishing" capitalism around the world. The bath was only the first of many life style aspects Rome would establish in its colonies. Creation of town square and downtown lay out was the same every where so that soldiers in one city could defend positions in another city. Over time, foreign colonies would be accepted as being Roman provinces. This meant that Rome was dedicated to establishing stability in their colonies. The more unrest there would be, even if it was amongst conquered lands, the more likely that Roman legionnaires would have to be sent over. And this Rome did not like to do. The British did some similar things, but in general, an Arab (or an Indian, or an African) would not get to have dinner with the Queen and discuss his province. More importantly, the British preferred to bring to power the smallest minority in the countries they ruled. They would then see to it that enough resentment and hate was directed towards that same minority whom they'd put in power. The idea was that this ruling class would never have the popular support to rebel. In fact, most often the clan that the British put in power knew that without the British they'd be dead. In other words, the Romans ruled more by eliminating the reasons to rebel, whereas the British ruled more by fear of their withdrawal. As a result, in most countries after the British left, social unrest and civil war ensued. Here is a sample of British handy work Message 18769513 There was another one about how they massacred women and children in the town square without a warning shot and just to establish moral law. If I recall correctly, the commander stated he stopped firing into people because he ran out of bullets. So yes, I take the Romans any day...preferably 2000 years into future. ST