Fatboy

I'm no military expert ( or dog expert )but I can tell you this. A pack of dogs is completely useless in a true combat role. They were indeed invaluable in vietnam among many other conflicts, finding booby traps, laying mines, following trails, hunting down VC and even dragging wounded troops to safety. They are not though, a problem in themselves to a man armed with an AK-47. Dog soldiers in a set piece battle ( if that is what we are talking about here - I think it is ) is ridiculous. Remember, dogs arent very dangerous. They are almost exclusively scavengers in the wild and only kill when the situation is thoroughly in their favour. It takes them forever to kill something cos they're not very well equipped to do it - I believe they were a popular form of execution at the Games for this very reason, they were so bad at it that people got their moneys worth of "entertainment". Yes Guard dogs and such do the job, I mean if a raging doberman attacked me I'd split cos I'd rather not tangle with him but if it was some sort of crazy battle to the death however I'd kick its ass in no time. Give me a sword, and I wouldn't even have to put out my cigarette. Dogs are pretty smart but also pretty feeble. A hardened soldier would give even the nastiest of pittbulls a swift kick in the head and that would be that. Tiger soldiers, now that would be something! Thats not to say it never happened I suppose, lots of weird stuff happened in History, but if I was a Roman soldier ( or any soldier ) going into battle I would not be worried about a pack of bloody dogs.

I think its rather debatable just how disastrous the defeat at Adrianople was. Theodosius thoroughly repaired the situation leaving the Danubian frontier area pacified, stable and now a great source of manpower for the Legions. A vindictive and brutal character such as Valens would never have been capable of the delicate touch needed to achieve this. In all likelihood had Valens not been killed the situation would have continued to deteriorate. There was a major reversal coming in the East sooner or later and had Theodosius not been around when it happened it may well have proved fatal. The incident was also the making of Theodosius. Gratian made Theodosius Augustus on the strength of his achievements with the Goths - no Adrianople, probably no Theodosius the Great. Whether Theodosius's concessions to the Goths ( particularly the incorporation of thousands of them into the legions ) contributed to the fall of the West or saved the East ( probably both ) is also debatable, but the fall of the West was at this stage probably just a matter of time and without Theodosius the East was headed the same way. It didn't though, amazingly it survived and prospered( eventually ). I think Adrianople may have been a blessing in disguise. I would go for Teutoberg Wold as whether that particular campaign was expansionist or not, had it been successful the next campaign( or the one after that, or the one after that..) would have been. Germany would have been well on the way to becoming another province of the Empire. A romanised Germany could have made all the difference when the Empire finally began to struggle, providing huge extra manpower and a geographical bullwark against attacks from the East. The terrain East of Germany, wide open plains and gentle hills and valleys, was much easier terrain so I imagine most of North Eastern Europe may have quickly followed. The awkward " L " shape of the Northern border the Empire ended up with was very difficult to defend. If Rome had managed to establish a border from the Baltic to the Caspian sea ( and with the conquest of Germany, they probably would have ) the Empire would have been immesureably easier to defend, hell, it would probably still be going, lol. The other, earlier battles on the list, despite being dramatic defeats taken by themselves were really just blips during Romes inexorable rise to greatness, I reckon.

I've always loved his name, definitely one of the coolest in all history. " The names Krum...... King Krum "

Hmnn, I quess I managed to miss ( or forget about ) this the first time round. Well, I'd much rather talk to any of you guys than most of the complete idiots which populate this planet so I'd be happy to hear from any of y'all. I've been kind of busy for the last while and am likely to be for another couple of weeks, but feel free to contact me. Although I haven't been using my msn messeger much lately if you see it is online you're welcome to say hello. Obviously PM or e-mail me anytime. Here's my contact info e-mail address - fattheboy@gmail.com or msn messenger/e-mail - fattheboy@hotmail.com

What do y'all think of Justinians attempt to reconquer the west. Was it ever practical? Was it even possible? Could it have held together? Would it have gotten anywhere without Belisarus?

One of the more pleasant aspects of reading about the Ancient world is the almost total lack of racism. Xenophobia, bigotry, sectarianism and extreme nationalism were all amply represented in Classical times but yes, the racism familiar to us today was pretty much unheard of. To take Ancient Egypt as an example, they may have routinely referred to anyone and everyone from the East as a " vile Asiatic " and the Nubians as " craven hearted wretches " but this sort of language of course was all part of maintaining a healthy fear and hatred amongst the population for Egypts traditional enemies. They certainly considered other peoples inferior but had no conception that this was due to the colour of their skin or some other " racial " difference, they were simply foreigners who had the temerity to live beyond the borders of Egypt and the foolishness not to submit to the obviously universal authority of the Pharaoh. Both the dark Nubian Pharaohs of the 7th and 8th Centuries BC and the lighter skinned Ptolemaic Dynasty were equally well accepted by the Egyptian people, the Hyksos apparently less so but this was due to their much less successful adoption of Egyptian customs, unsuprising as thay seem to have been a nomadic people. Similarly, the Greeks and Romans would liberally refer to other peoples as Barbarians and talk of their base instincts and savage customs, but it never entered their heads that the colour of their skin could be responsible. They would often admiringly attribute positive physical and mental characteristics which they themselves considered desirable to a particular Barbarian. Having pale skin was considered desirable in many cultures through history but this was seen as a sign of success, that the person concerned could afford to stay indoors rather than work under the glare of the sun all day, rather than the source of superiority. Cultural snobbery was rife in the ancient world but true racism as we know it today never entered their heads probably because it is so well......stupid. I think nowadays, so familiar with the concept are we that sometimes we can forget how ridiculous the idea is, that people of a different skin colour or who look superficially different could be somehow fundamentally inferior. Many years ago I decided to really investigate the whole idea of racism and particularly the ideology of the Nazi's. I purposely did so with a completely open mind and was delighted to find out that it was even more absurd than I had thought it was. Racism is not wrong because so many people say it is. Its not wrong because we may find it distasteful. Its wrong because its complete and utter bullsh*t. The differences between people of different races is so miniscule as to render any of these racist theories comical. Even the difference between a man and a woman is massive compared with that between two men of different " races ". In fact there really are no biological differences that can be ascribed to " race ". Sure there are trends towards an aptitude for certain activities among different peoples around the world possibly resulting from the local gene pool but this is completely independant of " race ". Famously black dudes in America tend to make particularly great atheletes. As descendants of slaves taken from West Africa they of course share their powerful physique and amazing muscle definition. So is this because they are black ? Hardly, there are not too many Central African Pygmies playing running back in the NFL. This stuff has got nothing whatsoever to do with " race ". Germans for example also have a tendency towards powerful physiques and and defined muscles, much more so than the equally white French. Oh hang on a minute, I was getting carried away and forgot what this thread was actually about for a moment. This is turning into general rant against racism. Well, any excuse for an anti racism rant is a good excuse but I will attempt to get back on the topic of racism's appearance in history anyhow. Where it really matters of course is the area of mental abilities and this happily is where the idea has been most thoroughly discredited. As has been said it was the European colonialists who came up with the racism we know today. You can see why they began to think that way. Obviously they wondered why it was that technologically and culturally they were so far in advance of the various peoples they came accross on their travels. I suppose the answer that they were just simply " better " than everybody else was a pretty satisfying one. If you can imagine that you are part of the English community in India , with a mere couple of hundred of your countrymen living like kings, lording it over millions of natives, well it would be pretty easy to believe that you were somehow inherently superior. In fact it would be important to believe you were superior to maintain authority. Similarly, hundreds of years earlier at the birth of the colonial era the Spanish Conquistadors would have had to nurture a deep belief in their superiority over the natives to even attempt the incredibly audacious campaigns they waged in South America. Deep Religious faith was really where they drew their unshakeable confidence though. The theory that other races were mentally inferior to the white man was wonderfully destroyed in the 19th Century when the occaisional British colonist would adopt a native child of the Australasian Aboriginal peoples. Often sent to England to be educated, the British racial theorists were naturally fascinated to see out how they got on learning the same curriculum as British childeren. It was generally thought that the aboriginal childeren would find maths unmanageable a this discipline suited the " civilised " mind and was beyond thier savage intellects, capable only of a kind of animal cunning. Of course the aboriginal kids turned out to be no different than the native kids and several turned out to be specifically talented at maths, thoroughly debunking the theory. The Romans surely had no real concept of racism. The fact that people of all colours and creeds were accepted into the Empire and could rise to postions of great importance certainly shows this to be true. The North African Emperor Septimus Severus is an example though I cannot see why he is often called " the black Emperor ". That guy wasn't black. From the busts I've seen of the man he is clearly not black at all. I have seen some busts of his family too and while some of them certainly look North African they do not look black in the slightest. Is this another incident of this disgusting trend of people of certain colours " claiming " historical figures for their " race " or am I going blind? Why would being from North Africa make it likely you were black when only a portion of the population would have been so? I have also heard ridiculous claims that Jesus and Moses were Black. Racism cuts both ways and the black people who have been claiming these things are legitimising racism simply by virtue of the fact that they are saying it matters what colour any of these guys skins were. I haven't bothered investigating any of these claims but they seem nonsensical to me. Ah! Way off topic again but I can't help it, racism is one of the few things that makes me lose my cool. Its just so ignorant and pathetic, it bothers me. Anyway, enough of this rambling, yup the Romans would turn their noses up at you for all sorts of reasons but generally speaking, skin colour alone wasn't one of them.

Well, yes its partly that but there is something more to it. Like in every sport the dominant team are always resented but Utd are no longer the team they once were and they are still hated just as much. In fact I now hate them with a new intensity which seems to grow every day. Even to look at one of their faces fills me with anger ( in fairness they are a remarkably ugly team ). Anyone who watches 7 of them intimidating a referee by surrounding him and screaming into his face over a mere throw in cannot help but despise them. They once went something like 10 years without conceeding a penalty in old trafford simply through this ritual of abuse against officials. . I cannot express how much I hate each and every one of them, on a deeply personal level. I was brought up to hate Utd though, being brought up in a fanatical Arsenal family. Some of my best friends are Man Utd supporters and for the duration of any Arsenal - Man Utd game we truly hate each other ( they have a similar hatred of Arsenal naturally ) Lately though I have been attemping to spread my supply of hatred to cover Chelsea aswell. I don't hate them that much yet but I am working on it because they so thoroughly deserve it. Ps. You have a filthy mind Primus.......

Here's a couple of interesting dudes from Eastern Europe 13th Century John Ducas Vatatzes ( 1193 - 1254 ) Reigned as John III over the Empire of Nicea, a successor state formed by the dispossed Greeks in the wake of the Latin conquest of Constantinople in 1208. Against incredible odds he fought off pressure from the Turks, Huns, Latins and the other Greek successor states in order to form a powerful independant Kingdom, one which would retake Constantinople in 1260 under the Emperor Micheal VIII Palaeologus. Rudolf von Hapsburg ( 1218 -1291 ) A Count of the minor House of Hapsburg, Rudolf was elected Holy Roman Emperor in 1273 by the princes of Germany. His relative unimportance secured his election - he was seen as someone who could be controlled, but he soon proved to be a far formidable figure than the princes had anticipated. He defeated rival claimant King Ottokar of Bohemia and then proceeded to lay the foundations for the mighty Dynasty the Hapsburgs would become. 14th Century Dmitri Ivanovich Donskoi ( 1350 - 1389 ) Ruled as Grand Duke Dmitri I of Moscow from 1359 to 1389. His defeat of the Golden Horde at the Battle of Kulikovo in 1380 was the first Russian success against the Tartars since the Mongol conquest. A national Hero on the strength of this, he was also astute enough to restablish peaceful relations with his more powerful neighbour allowing him to deal with various other threats. Lazar Hrebeljanovic ( 1371 - 1380 ) A Sebian Prince, he is a legend in Serbia as the heroic loser of the Battle of Kosovo. He strengthened and to a degree unified the Serbs in order to face the showdown with the Turks he forsaw as inevitable. His armies fought the Turks to a virtual standstill and both he and the Turkish Sultan Murad I were killed. Although strategically a defeat, it is the heroic sacrifice of his death which has cementd his place in the folklore of the region. 15th Century Janos Hyunadi ( 1387 - 1456 ) A tenacious Hungarian General who was for the Turks most implacable enemy in Europe. At times almost single handedly defending South Eastern Europe his finest moment came in 1456 when his troops, combined with a force of Crusaders he had attracted from the rest of Europe defeated the forces of Sultan Mehmet II at Belgrade. His son Matthias Corvinus would become King of Hungary and establish it as the most powerfull state in central Europe. Sultan Murad II ( 1402 - 1451 ) Overshadowed by his illustrious successor Mehmet the Conqueror, Murad was an interesting and complex character. A lover of the arts and not naturally warlike, he several times tried to step down from his thrown but events forced him to continue on each occaision. Despite this personality he was a formidable opponent when need be. Although unsuccessful in his seige of Cinstantinople in 1422, six years later he seized Salonika from Venice, which beyond the victory itself was an important statement of Ottoman naval power. He achieved another crucial victory when defeating the Christian forces, Hunyadi included, at Varna in 1444, setting the scene for his successors final conquest of Constantinople. Of course Skenderbeg, a contemporary of the last two is a particularly interesting bloke, I'm sure there is somebody on this forum more qualified to give you the goods on him

I agree, if one is looking to choose a specific point when the Empire became truly Greek the reign of Heraclius is probably the best candidate. This is usually treated as the same question as the " when did the Roman Empire end and the Byzantine Empire begin? " debate. Personally, from the fall of the West onwards I always think of the Eastern Empire as Byzantine regardless, after all it is only a term of convenience.

Yup, Ratsinger. The bookies got it right as usual.

Well, sure the scope of the movie is the entire Trojan War rather than just the Iliad, but the bones of it is based on Homer. Which they proceeded to randomly destroy. There is no alternative historical evidence pointing to Menalaus dying in Troy for example. Its just butchered Homer. There is no attempt to write a historical account or anything like it. I don't mean to be rude but what are you talking about? I never even alluded to anything approaching that. Homer wrote a great and important epic tale, probably based on Greek history as he knew it. How is making a mutilated version of this with arbitrary changes and ommisions a historical acount ? They are using Homers characters and retelling his tale of the Trojan War, and they made a complete hash of it because they took ridiculous liberties with one of history's greatest works. Simple as that. I must say though I do kind of see what you were getting at in your first post though. If you meant simply watching the movie on its merits instead of comparing it to what we think it should be well then thats a good point, strangley enough that is exactly the tactic I have been using lately in order to enjoy the latest rush of historical epics. And it has worked pretty well for me. I found it impossible with Troy though because it is complete irredeemable rubbish. In my opinion of course *edit* Oh by the way I didn't mean to jump all over you when you were just trying to bring a bit of sanity to the torrent of abuse directed at the film. I'm all tired and cranky today

Who do y'all fancy as the next Pope? I'm going for Tettamanzi. Ratzinger seems to be the favourite but he is now being unfairly exposed as a former Hitler youth on top of his already harsh reputation. Tettamanzi seems to be the candidate of the real anti-Ratzinger Cardinals so he may get a lot of the votes intended for the other Italians if he is seen as the only realistic competitor to him. He's reasonably old, which fits the " short pontificate " theory that seems to hold sway, and his inoffensive looks and happy harmless image would be helpfull to avoid any impression of trying to " follow " John Paul. A "Pope Lite" with a short reign to help everybody deal with the fact that John Paul is gone. He is quite progressive though, which might help his popularity the people but probably not with a lot of the Cardinals. If not him some Italian - maybe Batista re.

Valerius, you gotta be kidding me. Seriously there are no words that do justice to what a complete disaster that movie was. They chickened out of rounding out the characters or the dialogue but inexplicably felt free to completely butcher the story. It is the precise opposite of what needed to be done. I still can't quite get over what a complete balls they made of it. They had a huge wad of money and one of the greatest stories ever told to work with - and they managed to make it almost unwatchable. Its insane. All they had to do was tell the story as it is and take a few liberties wuth the dialogue and thats it - instant classic. Instead we get one of the very worst movies ever made, a crime, a tragedy, a disgrace.....its all of these and more. In short then Valerius, I dissagree with you slightly

Crouching Tiger rocks, I haven't seen Hero yet. Although the new breed of modern historical movies are nearly always a let down, I now manage to enjoy most of them by switching off all my natural cynicism and simply enjoying the atmosphere because they are for the most part, beautifully shot. I simply ignore the fact that the movie dosen't really work. It is annoying though that Gladiator showed how it should be done but still movie after movie misses the mark. History is so full of incredible stories and ready made larger than life characters that its amazing that these movies are so often botched. I haven't seen Alexander yet but I'm told that Colin Farrell is woefully miscast. Its maybe a pity the other rival Alexander film was not made instead as Leonardo diCaprio would have been the perfect Alexander. Actually pompeius mentions the series Band of Brothers. If we are counting WWII films, The Thin Red Line is a stone cold classic.

lol. Game on P. lts going to be INSANE!!!!

This is just incredible. Coupled with the imminent excavation of the library at Herculaneum we should be entering a golden age for the study of the classical world. Also...those Gospels will really stir things up, heh heh could be fun.

Arsenal 3 - 0 Blackburn. The boy van Persie done the business. Well, we've done our part, its over to you guys now. You shouldn't have too many problems, Newcastle won't be in the best of moods after their hillarious loss to Sporting Lisbon during the week. For the first time in my life I'll be supporting Man Utd tomorrow so you'd better win.

I have to go with North Africa. It was the defeat of Carthage which really set Rome on the path to Empire. It opened the door to the conquest of Spain and Gaul particularly. Its a good point Ursus makes about the conquest of Italy. Certainly the subjugation of the other Italian tribes and the Celts of Cisalpine Gaul was essential before Rome could make any further moves towards greatness. I think this only assured Rome's survival though, as has been said before Rome may have remained a regional power if they hadn't tackled the Carthaginians.

I wish you guys would stop messing about and get more involved A European Federal Union is gonna happen eventually, and if you take part willingly rather than be dragged in kicking and screaming, you can have more say in how it evolves. Personally, I think its a beautiful thing. Europe needs to be a superpower. The world needs Europe to be a superpower. There is a lack of balance in the world right now. I would say that though, its little countries like us who have got all the benefits so far. The EU virtually built the prosperous Ireland we now live in. Sorry, I'm taking this off topic as usual. I imagine Blair will win the election. People go with what they know in an environment of fear. Much like in the States there will be a big deal made of the oppositions chances but in the end people will rather not risk change. If he figures he can get away with it watch for more arrests of " terrorists " and bogus security scares in the near future to keep everybody in check. Of course its highly probable I'm way of the mark, I've no real idea of what British voters are thinking.

I used to love Lego back in the day. Be sure to show us some pics when you're finished I had a root around and came up with: Some drawings above overhead from the circus state rooms state rooms again plan clear above detailed plan banquet hall A couple of pics of the ruins hippodrome from the circus from the circus different angle

lol, we'll see. ( nice result against Norwich by the way )

Well, I don't think I have actual " hobbies ", more " interests " or possibly " obsessions ". Hobbies will do though, here they are: First the big 3 History/Reading: I read mostly history either popular or the more harcore stuff, biographies and travel books. I rarely read fiction, if I do its generally only if its truly unmissable. I have a system where I keep 3 books on the go at the same time so I can pick a different one up depending on my mood. I have just finished " Hawkwood " by Frances Stonor Saunders a biography of the 14thC English mercenary. " Command of the Ocean " by N.A.M. Rodger, an exhaustive history of British sea power from the 17th to 19thC and " Hokkaido Highway Blues " by Will Ferguson, a hillarious and perceptive travel book about Japan. I got lucky, all three turned out to be excellent. I'm about to start with " In Siberia " by Colin Thubron, " Courtesans and Fishcakes " by James Davidson and " Guns, Germs and Steel " by Jared Diamond. One of these will probably lose its place to " Catch 22 " though, which I feel like reading for the 1,000th time Music and Music Production: I listen to music of pretty much any style, as long as its got soul. My favourites would include Pink Floyd, Toots and the Maytals, early Black Sabbath, Lee Perry, Chopin, Autopsy, Creedence Clearwater Revival, Squarepusher and assorted alternative Hip Hop. I also write rap lyrics, and make/produce various styles of music. Football: I'm a football fanatic. I am a third generation Arsenal fan so I live and die with every kick of a ball at Highbury. I rarely make it over to games, which is probably a good thing as I almost have a heart attack when I do go. I've played for my local team since I was a kid and I am in my completely unbiased opinion the finest player on the planet. Well , maybe not that good but any ambitions I may have had for playing at a higher level dissappeared when I was 13 and like a lot of other kids decided that booze and girls were more interesting to me at the time. Apart from that my interests are: Hanging out with the boys. Dinosaurs. The Ladies ( trying to fathom them out that is ). Watching and playing a variety of sports. The consumption of mind-bending chemicals ( retired ). Bullying bullys Model making occasionally Speculating on politics, physics, philosophy and lots of other stuff that probably starts with p. Puzzle Games. Loyalty Intelligent conversation, when I can find it. Daydreaming.

Yes, certainly to think all Americans live like they do on TV is ridiculous but I was in fact referring to American News and discussion programs rather than soap operas and hollywood blockbusters, which is slightly more reasonable. For the record I voted yes, although I accept its a bit of a stretch. Rather than a territorial Empire I believe it is an economic one. This has been achieved through the work of the IMF ( International Monetary Fund ) and the World Bank under the umbrella of the WTO ( World Trade Organisation ). It is an accepted fact that the US effectively controls the IMF through its disproportionate voting strength and effective veto power. The financial clout of the IMF is of course provided by the World Bank whose President is chosen by the American Goverment ( Paul Wolfowitz(!) at the moment ).The original purpose of these organisations since their foundation at the tale end of the Second World War was of course to provide financial assistance to poorer countries. The World Bank provides loans to finance SAP's ( Structural Adjustment Programs ). These SAP's involve a complete overhaul of the countries economic system, turning it into a completely free market economy almost overnight whether the country is capable of it or not. Third World countries cannot sustain loan payments or keep their economy afloat without the service provided by the IMF. Now, the IMF supplies money for the short term financial balancing and debt repayment. This though is only supplied if the recipients agree to a SAP, removing any freedom of action for the beneficiaries of the loan. As the policy of the World Bank is subordinate to that of the IMF anyway agreement to adopt an SAP is the first thing any impoverished country has to do in order to secure assistance. SAP's are forced upon these countries, who already in debt from previous loans, have no choice but to do as they are told by their creditors. To be honest, none of this is really up for debate, its just the way it is. What was up for debate until recently was the effect of this on the " victims ". This has been pretty much resolved with the admission of former IMF and World Bank Presidents and Chief Executives of the harm done by this policy and recent resistance within American political bodies themselves. For the recipient nations it has been an unmitigated disaster, most spectacularly causing the economies of various South American countries to fall like dominos one after the other into chaos. For America it has been hugely beneficial. Predictably and purposely the main effect of this whole thing has been to mould the world economy to America's vision. The principal points in any SAP are the privatisation of government controlled industry and services and the withdrawal of governmental protection for native business from the " global economy ". This is disastrous for native business but a wonderful opportunity for American companies. They are now buying up such essential services as drinking water and electricity in these countries which obviously means that the financial capital of the country is flowing endlessly outwards, never to return. Add this to the fact that the local representative of the IMF, which as we have seen functions an arm of the American Treasury, controls all aspects of the country's economic and political life, and its clear that these nations are ceasing to exist - they are becoming little more than satellites of the US. I should of course point out that European and Japanese companies are equally quick to dismember these " corpses " and that there is huge European involvement in the World Bank and IMF. The direction and philosophy of these organisations though are provided directly by the American government. I was lucky enough to see the portrayal of the attempted coup in Venezuela and the abduction of Hugo Chavez on American TV. It was shown as a popular revolution against a hated dictator. This was not the case, Chavez for all his faults was the democratically elected eader of the country. His crime was to turn down the IMF. This incurred the wrath of big business in his own country and elsewhere. I will certainly not make any unfounded allegations about possible US involvement in this coup, but suffice to say, he was not popular in the WhiteHouse and the plane used for his abduction was found to be registered to the CIA:blink: I'm not tying to suggest that America is " evil " or even bad. All countries act in their own interests and all powerful countries intervene in the affairs of others. What I am trying to say is that America is shaping the world in its image and enforcing it. It is easy to see the US's latest military and poltical adventures as simply an acceleration of this process, the exportation of US style government leading to the creation of mini-americas where the wholesale adoption of American culture and economic beliefs provides another compliant member for the American sponsored Global Economy. I wouldn't be the first to liken this world economy to the British Commonweath of the 19th Century, or the power of the IMF representatives to the British Consuls of the same era. If I was pushed I'd have to say that I guess the US does not quite qualify as an Empire but I think its heading in that direction, and fast. I'm not saying this has to be a bad thing. The US way of running a country is certainly a vast improvement over some of the brutal totalitarian regimes out there. What would be so wrong with an eventual pax-americana across a world where everybody enjoyed freedom and democracy. The Athenian Empire of ancient Greece was an Empire centred around a democracy, an Empire does not need an Emperor, or any form of totalitarian government to be so.( If indeed the Athenian Empire is usually recognised as such, I think it is ) Please remember not to get angry everybody . I'm not necessarily criticising America, I'm pointing out how its behaviour is more and more resembling that of a burgeoning Empire. If it is an Empire it would the most benevolent one in history, but remember also that America is not Santa Claus either. It is as capable of political selfishness and manipulation as any other country and does not export its ideals out of an innocent kindness. *EDIT* Sorry for inflicting another rant on y'all, I just don't seem to be able to resist. I only intended to post " for the record I voted yes, although I accept its a bit of a stretch ", but I just kept going.............

Hmmnnn...... this would usually be my que to go off on a rant. I really don't think that would help kick off a balanced disscussion though. It would be better if this thread did not go down the well trodden road of Americans having to defend their country against various allegations thrown at it by Europeans and others. This tends to lead to people taking sides and trying to " win " the argument rather than simply exploring the subject, the most important subject in the world today. Instead, I would be much more interested to hear the opinions of Americans themselves on this. The first Americans I have ever met were on this site, and I was pleased to find them to be intelligent, knowledgeable and open minded people and not the dribbling simpletons they are so often protrayed to be over here. You see where I live many people actually believe this image.This stems, largely from American TV from which we get our impression of America and its people. We get American News channels and discussion programmes and since 9/11 if one was to believe TV it would seem as if America has switched off its collective brain. The tone has become consistently militaristic, jingoistic and beligerent and when compared with European channels the News programmes are so selective as to be almost crooked. Even those aware enough to know this is not a fair reflection on the American people generally have a very suspicious of America's ability to think objectively in this confrontational age. I would be fascinated to hear how Americans see the role of their country today and in the future, and any worries they might have about the direction they are heading in. There are certainly many parallels between the Roman Empire in the America of today to be explored, from the habitual portayal of distant battles as " defensive wars " to the widespread exportation of American culture. There is not nessecarily a right or wrong in this discussion of course, but as you are all most probably aware from earlier posts I am deeply concerned by modern America as a political entity. I would be optimistic that the thread would not get too out of control since on previous threads where I took the opportunity to have a go at American policy, everybody managed too deal with it quite maturely.

There is no one Gaelic as such but Gaelic languages like Scottish and Welsh. We speak modern Irish a Gaelic language, although most Irish people only have a rudimentary knowledge of it remembered from school. To say I speak Irish would be very generous description of my abilities. I can speak a kind of pidgin Irish at best. I sometimes talk with my friends in Irish but we generally use only a few simple words and phrases. Cen fath.................Why Ca bhuil tu..............Where are you? Nil fhois agam..........I don't know Tigim.......................I understand/ I know Bigim.......................I will Phroimplan...............Idiot/ fool literally " a pimple " That sort of thing. Many of the Irish words are misused and we would be incapable of a sustained conversation. Not many Irish people would complain about the fact that English has become our first language, certainly not me, English being the almost universal language of the media that it is. Officially Irish is still our first language but this is little more than a gesture. There are still some entirely Irish speaking areas in Ireland but for the most part the language seems to be dying unfortunately. The relatively new Irish speaking TV channel, TG4 is making an effort to reverse this trend by being one of the best stations around in my ( but not many other peoples ) opinion.