The Old World is a reference to those parts of Earth known to Europeans before the voyages of Christopher Columbus; it includes Europe, Asia and Africa.
simon wrote:
"Why was the diocese of Britain worth defending?"
Since Christianity was a late phenomenon,
a better question is
"Why was Britain worth conquering?"
What was Britain's value to the Empire and the Emperors?
No it wasn't and this doesn't make any sense
Brilliant then go away and start your own thread.
This is not the subject of this thread
Last edited by Simon21 on Sat Jul 21, 2018 5:10 am, edited 4 times in total.
kbs2244 wrote:I belive the answer to E P;s last question is that was a historic source of tin
The Romans used a lot of iron, but bronze was still used a lot.
Very possibly but that is not the subject of the thread. If you want to learn about this look at Tacitus' Agricola. He was Agricola's son in law.
Oh and Caesar of course.
There r those who think 'conquest' is a misconception.
Last edited by Simon21 on Sat Jul 21, 2018 9:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
One of the big provisos of this issue is how much the Romano British were roman. Many have argued that romanitas was a mere facade and that Britain largely remained unaffected by the conquest. This it is said explains the acculturalisation into England - the natives were too busy bashing each other to make common cause against the Anglo Saxons.
But is this true?
Guy De la bedoye cites the famous couplet concerning the British poet Silvius Bonus. How asks the Roman critic can any briton be called good (bonus)? This seems to show Britons were not held in high esteem by the Romans.
The division of the empire into east and west was a catastrophic flaw. The west did not have the economic base needed to sustain the empire. Add in the decision by Constantine to essentially de-professionalize the legions and make himself the supreme commander of an allegedly mobile reserve which was not mobile enough as events showed.
In essence, the empire fell because of pilot error.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
Minimalist wrote:The division of the empire into east and west was a catastrophic flaw. The west did not have the economic base needed to sustain the empire. Add in the decision by Constantine to essentially de-professionalize the legions and make himself the supreme commander of an allegedly mobile reserve which was not mobile enough as events showed.
In essence, the empire fell because of pilot error.
Nor quite. Constantine reunited the Empire as did Theodosius the Great. And the Romans still defeated the barbarians nearly everytime they met. Peter Brown points out the fourth and early fifth centuries were times of great prosperity - the fantastic wealth of some Romas is difficult to believe - e.g. Symmachus
The Eastern Roman empire lasted another 1,000 years after the West was overrun. Someone did not think that out properly.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
kbs2244 wrote:I belive the answer to E P;s last question is that was a historic source of tin
The Romans used a lot of iron, but bronze was still used a lot.
Well not entirely from 1204 to 1261 the Latins ruled after the disgusting and shameful 4th crusade.
