Skip to comments.Vikings AND Templars
Posted on 12/06/2017 6:33:19 PM PST by Noumenon
It just doesn't get any better.
Yes I am looking forward to it! :-)
Now that's entertainment.
You’ve never met a princess-ballerina-martyr
I miss Ragnar and Rollo!! But at least I can see Rollo (Clive Standen) in his TV series “Taken.”
Give me a Vandal or Hun as well, Rome sacking never fails to put a faint smile on this sour mug!
Add the Gaelic people to that: the Gauls!
Oh...and the Visigoths (410), the Ostrogoths (586) and the Normans (1084)!
Was Rome really ever much of an empire?
And get down and dirty and thrown in a little Celtic -
Boudica! Can’t get enough Druids and chariots.
Oops...the Ostrogoths in 546.
Yep. That’s a big 10-4 to Boudica!
“Was Rome really ever much of an empire?”
Yeah, the hits kept coming.
I seem to remember the Romans themselves weren’t shy about looting Rome everyone in a while. Always remember — PAY your troops!
>Was Rome really ever much of an empire?
Longest lasting major empire history. Very few empires last longer than 250 years and Rome made it for nearly 700 years in the west and nearly 1200 years in the east.
Was Rome really ever much of an empire?!? Pullease. :^)
Rome's first conquest was Ostia, circa 400 BC; the empire was divided by the Emperor Diocletian before 305 AD; the eastern half of the empire reconquered a good bit of the fallen western half of the empire during the reign of Justinian, but regardless, endured with rising and falling territorial fortunes until the Turks finally waltzed on in and took Constantinople in 1453 -- iow, a span of at least 1853 years.
Although Rome never bothered to conquer Hibernia (allegedly modern Ireland) or northern Calendonia (allegedly modern Scotland, the Scots didn't arrive from Ireland until the 7th century AD), in each case because there wasn't anything worth conquering, Roman commerce was always far-reaching, even after the 5th c fall of Rome.
The full extent of Roman conquest is still unknown, but apparently Rome established a base or trading post on the coast of Ireland (there's an FR topic of course), and within the past ten years or so an archaeological rescue dig turned up a Roman cemetery in Copenhagen, Denmark.
I’ve heard that “There was nothing worth conquering” bit before about Ireland and Scotland, yet when one looks at the effort and maintenance required for Hadrian’s wall it is very clear to any impartial person that Rome simply couldn’t conquer the Scots. To build and staff the fortifications certainly was a drain, and it could have been avoided or minimized by simply marching to the northern coast. Even the nuisance raids from the Irish don’t seem to be something Rome tolerated from other neighbors; while Rome probably had the military might to defeat both of these places, they certainly didn’t have it in the right place and time to do so.
Is it possible that Rome never bothered to conquer Caledonia because, as Caesar was reported to have said:
“Caledonia, Quod facit caput tuum magnum et difficile?”
Europe needs a modern day Ivar the Boneless.
Europe needs a combo of the Vikings and the Templars in order to properly clean house of the Muslims and the Quisling politicians.
We added Long RD Home and Seal Team to those other 2.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.