Thread replies: 8
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: 4476838526_8441206719_b.jpg (551KB, 1024x797px) Image search:
[Google]
551KB, 1024x797px
>Are our opponents going to reply that the Roman Empire could not have been increased so far and wide, and Roman glory could not have spread, except by continual wars, following one upon another? What a satisfying explanation! Why must an empire be deprived of peace, in order that it may be great? In regard to men’s bodies it is surely better to be of moderate size, and to be healthy, than to reach the immense stature of a giant at the cost of unending disorders - not to rest when that stature is reached, but to be troubled with greater disorders with the increasing size of the limbs. Would any evil have resulted, would not, in fact, the result have been wholly good, if that first era had persisted? Here is Sallust’s brief description of those times:
>‘At the beginning of history the name of kings was given to the first wielders of power. Those kings differed in their inclinations: some exercised their mental powers, others their physical abilities. At that time men’s life was lived without greed, and each man was content with what he had.’
Well, /his/? Can an empire be great and peaceful at the same time?
>>
This question is really good.
>>
>>1242250
And it will get no reply's unless someone brings up niggers, Christianity or Hitler
>>
>>1242268
It's horrifying...
>>
I just don't know if complacency and stagnation can fuel an empire. We've never seen an empire not engage in violence either directly or by proxy before. In International Relations (especially if you look at it through a realist lens) conflict is inevitable and states must use violence or the threat of it in order to achieve its national interest.
>>
>>1242101
Weren't Indus valley peaceful?
Besides, depends on if you mean "expansionistic" or "ill kill any mofos that wants to invade me" by not peaceful.
>>
>>1242101
empires can remain great and peaceful if their central territories' needs are being met and their outer territories are kept in line. this is easier said than done clearly
>>
It depends what you mean by empire.
If you mean just the extent of lands conquered and ruled by one central nation/peoples- e.g 'The Roman empire stretched from Britain to Iran' then no.
If you are using it to simply refer to a state- e.g 'The Roman empire used gold coinage' then yes of course.
Thread posts: 8
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1