Alliance
Enforcer of the Republic
Originally posted by Alfheim
Welcome to history from a different point of view."
Well, just because he has a differen't point of view, doesn't make it history. And "Roman history as seen by the Britons, Gauls, Germans, Greeks, Persians and Africans" is just as narrow a perspective as the "Roman" one that he is trying to attack. So, at least, he is a hypocrite in his theoretical approach to history.
And I'm so glad he can bring "wit" to history...his time in Monty Python should have helped that.
I have been unable to find any scholarly criticism on Terry Jones' Barbarians, so I will off hold judgement on him for now, as I relly don't want to spend an hour watching overdramatic television.
Though I will say, treachery, schorched earth campaigns, conquering and murder should not be construed as barbarianism. Barbarian describes a type of culture, one unable to blossom into a civilized society.
Often times neighboring areas did not threaten Rome's security, and propoganda was installed (take Cato and the Third Punic War), that is not barbarism at all, and modern Historians DONT buy into it. If there is a rebellion in Corinth, of course the Romans will percieve it as a threat, and level the city as they did in 146 BCE.
Due to the nature of the Roman military pay structure under the Marian reforms, and the nature of their tax system, the only way to keep the economy flowing was to continuously expand. Its not a coincidence that the Empire started to suffer major problems one Hadrian instituted his policy of non-expansion.
Now, if you really feel that this warrants further discussion, you can pm me, or start a thread in the History forum, because it will not be further discussed here.