|
|
Which country is the most Latin: France, Spain or Italy?
<<That's true, the Spanish empire was far bigger in terms of land, but far, far smaller in terms of population. >>
On the contrary, Mexico was highly populated (more or less like nowadays). The chronicles tell us that the capital of the Aztec empire was biggest than the European cities.
<<The only evolved part of Spanish Empire was Milan that they lost in few time.>>
Milan was part of the Spanish Crown from 1525 until 1713.
"The Latin alphabet was a slight modification of the Greek one. It had nothing special"
<<.. other than it is now the global standard.>> Wrong. The Latin Alphabet is not our standard. It only had capital letters and it did not include letters like J, K and W . Our alphabet is based on the Latin one just like the Latin alphabet was based on the Greek alphabet. So nothing special.
Who said it was. It just happens to be what we write our language in, and even though it evolved it's still generally called the Latin alphabet.
<<"the 'Roman Empire' as THE Singular Pivotal point in Universal history": it was the real starting point of Christianity and of both most successful inventions ever : the Julian + Christian calendar, and the Latin alphabet. >>
Jesus Christ was the starting point of Christianity. It has an earlier Judaeo base. It already exisited in many parts of Asia, N Africa and SE Europe without the Roman Empire. Romans didn't invent Chrisitanity. The Latin alphabet is not a Roman invention either: it was borrowed from Greek<Phonecian<Proto-Canaanite<etc. And the Roman calendar is no different than any other culture's lunar calendar. Romans didn't invent 'time' or the concept thereof... See? Romans are but a *link* in the chain, like the Franks, the British, the Americans...nothing special really. they are not the Genesis of all things Western.
It's like people get "stuck" and "fixated" at the Roman point in history, you know...it's weird to tell the truth
Once something becomes associated with Rome or the Romans, it never acquires a subsequent association even if it moves along--like the alphabet cited above for example: It was Proto-Canaanite, then Phonecian > then Greek > then Latin, but it stops right here...it never progresses to > the "French" alphabet > the "English" alphabet, even though it actually really does progress, but just not in name or association. Why such idiocy? Were the French not better than the Romans? They were...was not the British Empire grander than the French? It was... we're stupid.
Who said it was. It just happens to be what we write our language in, and even though it evolved it's still generally called the Latin alphabet.
That it is called Latin alphabet does not mean it was invented by the Romans. They only used capital letters, on the contrary we don't use them most of the time. We don't write our language in the alphabet of the Romans, it is quite different.
Ват зи фак ар ю тэлкинг абэут? Синс вен ваз зи Латэн элфэбит зи факкинг стэендард? Ю ар эн идиот иф ю тинк зэт ит из зи онли гут элфабит.
<<Ват зи фак ар ю тэлкинг абэут? Синс вен ваз зи Латэн элфэбит зи факкинг стэендард? Ю ар эн идиот иф ю тинк зэт ит из зи онли гут элфабит.>>
hmmm. strange. English is Cyrillic script.... If I weren't part hunkie I'd be confused.
Why the Romans never were able to conquest the Germanic tribes ? They were technologically less advanced than Romans, and as primitive if not more than the Gauls. So why did the Gauls surrendered to Julius Caesar in less than 5 years and the Germans on the contrary expeled the Romans every time they attempted to annex Central and Northern Europe? It seems a mistery to me.
"It seems a mistery to me."
-- No. Gallia was back then in a transition from barbary to civilization. The Gauls began to build towns, to use money, trade was flourishing. The new urban classes were begging for law and order, wanted to get rid from their own warrior gangs. Therefore the Roman were able to control Gallia without shedding a single drop of Roman blood. Caesar had the majority of tribes and all towns on his side, all his officers were from Southern Gallia, all troops were made of locals. In short, the Gallic wars were actually a civil war between an antique tribal order and those who wanted modernization. For the same reason, the Normans —who had the most advanced state at that time— were able to conquer England almost effortless. The City of London warmly welcomed William. "Why the Romans never were able to conquest the Germanic tribes ?" -- They were not interested. The Romans were driven by cold cost calculation. When they faced a definite barbaric area that didn't want them and wasn't likely to bring any strategic or economic benefit, they stopped and built a wall. So they did in Northern England (Scotland wasn't worth a war), in Northern Africa beyond a narrow coastal rim, or in Germania along the Rhine-Danube line.
<<The City of London warmly welcomed William. >>
Oh really? <<Gallia was back then in a transition from barbary to civilization.>> I love this. Gallia gets to be "in a transition from barbary to civilization" (as related by a Frenchman) yet the Germans today are still "barbarians" (not so labeled in this particular thread, but in others...) despite the fact that they are more civilized today than the inhabitants of Gallia were at that time; as though the Germans never were allowed to have a transitory episode...esp one relatively immediately thereafter according to historical time too funny idiocy at its finest ;) |