|
Europe
Nov 29, 2004 18:39:32 GMT -4
Post by Dan on Nov 29, 2004 18:39:32 GMT -4
Caeser was the closest, no?
|
|
|
Europe
Nov 29, 2004 18:49:59 GMT -4
Post by admin on Nov 29, 2004 18:49:59 GMT -4
Depends on how you look at it.
The Roman empire, at its height, didnt really have Russia or alot of eastern Europe. But there really was not much there to lay claim to. And it had England for only a small while.
It had Spain, France, and Germany for a long time.
Napolean never really had Russia or England and Russia was his undoing. England finished him off with the help of Prussia.
The Nazis also messed up in Russia, after a good start. And the never held the UK.
But the best was Rome, because they held the pieces they had for hundreds of years.
Napolean and Hitler didnt hold on for long.
The Romans did better because after they crushed military resistance, they set up a governor, some taxes, and largely left the people alone. They did not try to assimilate or oppress culture like every other empire before or after.
But when Caesar was in power, I think Rome did not hold Germany at that time.
|
|
|
Europe
Nov 29, 2004 22:05:17 GMT -4
Post by Jogo on Nov 29, 2004 22:05:17 GMT -4
They were all Ceasar I think. You mean Julio Ceasar?
|
|
|
Europe
Nov 30, 2004 19:16:20 GMT -4
Post by admin on Nov 30, 2004 19:16:20 GMT -4
I was assuming he meant Julius. But all the emperors after him took the name Caesar and it became their title.
|
|
|
Europe
Dec 1, 2004 1:26:17 GMT -4
Post by flying daggers on Dec 1, 2004 1:26:17 GMT -4
Do you think that EU, European Union, might one day disolve all borders within Europe and unite Europe as one nation?
|
|
|
Europe
Dec 1, 2004 1:26:42 GMT -4
Post by flying daggers on Dec 1, 2004 1:26:42 GMT -4
Obviously, to do that, first they need to convince the British people to join.
|
|
|
Europe
Dec 1, 2004 1:29:29 GMT -4
Post by CatsLiam on Dec 1, 2004 1:29:29 GMT -4
I was assuming he meant Julius. But all the emperors after him took the name Caesar and it became their title. yeah he means julius
|
|
|
Europe
Dec 1, 2004 1:37:53 GMT -4
Post by flying daggers on Dec 1, 2004 1:37:53 GMT -4
Here's somemore interesting tid bits:
Ancient Rome depended heavily upon a clear cut system of law to govern its people and run the empire.
You can say that our legal system these days is a descendant of the Roman legal system.
Ancient China, on the other hand, under the influence of Confucious, relied heavily upon a system of social virtues and the harmonious relationships between all citizens to run the empire.
To put it simply, in ancient Rome, the Law governs the People, whereas in ancient China, the People governs the Law.
Now, these are two opposing systems, each residing at one end of the spectrum. But yet were both considered effective, as both ancient Rome and ancient China are arguably the greatest civilization the world has seen.
This is interesting, because it shows that there is nothing absolute in this world.
You would think that if one system works out perfectly, then the system that is the complete opposite of it would fail miserably.
But instead, in this case, both systems worked.
|
|
|
Europe
Dec 1, 2004 1:55:03 GMT -4
Post by CatsLiam on Dec 1, 2004 1:55:03 GMT -4
are you a historian or something?
|
|
|
Europe
Dec 1, 2004 12:26:10 GMT -4
Post by Jogo on Dec 1, 2004 12:26:10 GMT -4
Do you think that EU, European Union, might one day disolve all borders within Europe and unite Europe as one nation? I don't think it will go that far. One country and it's culture will always be independent. In a geographic point of view, there won't be one nation. In a political point view they are talking about creating something like the united states of europe...
|
|
|
Europe
Dec 1, 2004 15:53:26 GMT -4
Post by admin on Dec 1, 2004 15:53:26 GMT -4
I know a guy from the UK that says the UK is more likely to become the 51st state than join the EU.
I doubt thats a possibility, but I was surprised to hear him say that.
|
|
|
Europe
Dec 1, 2004 15:57:44 GMT -4
Post by admin on Dec 1, 2004 15:57:44 GMT -4
Here's somemore interesting tid bits: Ancient Rome depended heavily upon a clear cut system of law to govern its people and run the empire. You can say that our legal system these days is a descendant of the Roman legal system. Ancient China, on the other hand, under the influence of Confucious, relied heavily upon a system of social virtues and the harmonious relationships between all citizens to run the empire. To put it simply, in ancient Rome, the Law governs the People, whereas in ancient China, the People governs the Law. Now, these are two opposing systems, each residing at one end of the spectrum. But yet were both considered effective, as both ancient Rome and ancient China are arguably the greatest civilization the world has seen. This is interesting, because it shows that there is nothing absolute in this world. You would think that if one system works out perfectly, then the system that is the complete opposite of it would fail miserably. But instead, in this case, both systems worked. I havent studied ancient china as much as I would like, but my understanding is that it was a rather feudal society. I thought the Emperor and local lords made the laws. I havent studied up on this, but you cant mean that the general peasant populace had any say in the government.
|
|
|
Europe
Dec 1, 2004 20:09:15 GMT -4
Post by flying daggers on Dec 1, 2004 20:09:15 GMT -4
What I can gather, they do obviously have laws in ancient China. But what happens is that social norms, such as Confucious' teaching, played a much more important role in maintaining order.
For example, Confucious advocates that the "inferior" should respect and obey the "superior", and the "superior" in return should protect and care for the "inferior".
And these norms are what governs the people's behaviour, much more than whatever laws that existed at that time. Besides, their laws change all the time, what with them having so many different dynasties.
Also, look at the whole concept of honour.
Japan too was largely influenced by Confucious' teachings. Although there wasn't a law that says a soldier cannot defect to another lord, to do so means dishonour, and therefore you don't see a whole lot of defections going on, even if there is no written law against it.
And it is still somewhat true for modern Japan. Corporations, the "superior", provides job security and financial stability to its employees, the "inferiors", in exchange for their unwavering loyalty.
To put it in a nutshell, it's really "People Government" vs "Law Government".
In People Government, the members of the society play a much more important role in dictating what is acceptable and what is not. In a Law Government, the written law overrides everything else.
Obviously, they need to coexist, you can't have a country governed soley by social norms without any laws, and you can't have a country fully governed by laws without any social norms.
But the point is, they are at the opposite ends, one has to play second fiddle to another, yet both can be successful.
And no, I'm not a historian. I just happen to enjoy reading, and I read an article related to this in National Geographic a long time ago, and I found the whole thing quite fascinating.
|
|
|
Europe
Dec 1, 2004 20:33:00 GMT -4
Post by admin on Dec 1, 2004 20:33:00 GMT -4
That is interesting. I see what you are saying.
So for everything not defined by law there is a social obligation that covers the code of conduct.
So extensive laws dont need to be written.
|
|
|
Europe
Dec 1, 2004 20:49:25 GMT -4
Post by flying daggers on Dec 1, 2004 20:49:25 GMT -4
Yeah, and the interesting thing was that both Rome and China were really powerful ancient civilizations, even though they were governed differently.
Confucious' way was basically saying if people can instill the correct virtues in themselves, then they can govern their own behaviour and written laws can be made redundant.
Rome's way was basically saying that people cannot be depended on to govern their own behaviour, they need a set of written and absolute laws in order to maintain order.
In other words, in Confucious' view, the key to making a better society is to make better people, whereas in Rome's view, the key to making a better society is to make better laws.
I suppose in the end Rome's system won, since most countries in the world nowadays practises a legal system that has its roots in the Roman legal system.
|
|