 |
Can we declare war on France?
This poll is closed. |
| Yes |
   |
43 |
81.13% |
| No |
   |
10 |
18.87% |
| Total: |
53 voters |
100% |
|
| |
|
|
UnOrthOdOx
|
 |
Hello....
Jun 2002
time: 22:21
|
|
Yes Uber,
Stay, run again, and again. Remain SMC forever, that was your original plan, right? If all the reforms take place, it will be a new government, that means the three term rule starts over, no?
Seriously, I have complimented you enough over your terms. I believe I once called you a perfect example, even. Stay on, take a second shot at Lincoln (hopefully) and then you can go and remind Joan who you are again... All pending aproval of the people, of course.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Schee
|
 |
Skandes d'Æqualis
Aug 2001
time: 06:21
|
|
quote:
To be an empire, a nation has to possess conquered territories and peoples. |
Hmm... I don't think so... when Napoléon III declared himself as an Emperor, France didn't have conquered any territory since the fall of the First Empire.
I think the ruler of the country just has to say "now I am an Emperor and my country is an Empire"...
[edit] Last sentence had nothing to do here. [/edit]
Last edited by Schee on 10-08-2002 at 02:09
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ninot
|
 |
Centre Bell
Nov 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Schee
Hmm... I don't think so... when Napoléon III declared himself as an Emperor, France didn't have conquered any territory since the fall of the First Empire.
I think the ruler of the country just has to say "now I am an Emperor and my country is an Empire"...
[edit] Last sentence had nothing to do here. [/edit] |
Well, lets look at the Romans.
if you consider the years around Caesar's death (his battles with Pompey, his assasination, the battle for power afterwards) as the period of Anarchy, and then when Octavious took power the begining of the empire, well, there werent any serious teritory gains inbetween those two events. But what did change (although not much) was how seriously the ruler listened to the Senate. Sure, Octavious (Augustus) listened alot, but he was a supreme ruler. An Emperor. He had the power to make decisions single handedly.
I think that is all that made Rome an empire, how it was ruled.
And i dont think it was because Rome had overseas territories that made it go towards an Empire. My memory from what ive read on Pre-Anarchy Rome is sketchy right now, but if my memory serves me, the new teritories before 100 B.C. (and thus before the social wars) didnt have that great an effect on the Republic, it was just lands far away that happened to have Romans taking care of them.
I think the Empire bit had a lot more to do with certain powerful people (the generals) growing much displeased with how the Senate was being conducted, and then the generals being displeased with each other, untill the One ruler system emerged... where there was still too much ambition and conflict on the inside, which could be one reason for the fall of the empire.. well, other than the eventual collapse of the wonderous Roman armies that were so victorius for so long and then sundenly weren't very well kept.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-08-2002 15:53
, we should wait a bit , ...
|