US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

I am not suggesting that there was armed conflict beween the Irish and Romans, but I do believe there is archaeological evidence that will require some of the history to be revised and that Romans did occupy Ireland in the First Century. There is no denying that Britain, Scotland, Ireland, et al were all part of the Roman Empire. I can't remember if Julius Caesar visited Ireland at the same time he visited Britain in the first century A.D., but this is also recorded. Tacitus did not have benefit of recent archaeological discoveries.

0 Replies

It certainly is appropriate to deny that Scotland was ever a part of the Roman empire. Walls were built in the reign of Hadrian and of Antonine to keep the Scots and the Picts out. It certainly is appropriate to deny that Ireland was ever a part of the Roman empire. Read your own link, for Christ's sake.

0 Replies

Your own source hedges his bet with this contention:

Mr. Warner wrote:

So let us define `Roman' as implying an origin in the Roman empire, and `invasion' as intrusion by force of arms in fairly substantial numbers. Let us not fall into the error of understanding invasion to be synonymous with national conquest or incorporation into Empire, or that all the persons involved were Italians.

0 Replies

Strange that you would dispute Mr. Warner's research in one area but use it, however, vaguely to reinforce your opinion in another.

Here's another source, however (I wish I could access my textbooks on line):

Quote:

No single ruler was more responsible for the ultimate rise of Irish civilization that the Roman Emperor Britanicus. After the suspicious death of his adoptive brother Nero in 54 A.D., he presided over a prosperous, uneventful reign which did much to redeem the reputation of the imperial office. Britanicus occupied his time primarily in the pursuit of the pedantic interests that had so largely concerned his father, the Emperor Claudius. It is due to Britanicus's filial diligence in promoting the copying and distribution of his father's historical works that the histories of Claudius are among the most widely-preserved primary sources that have come down to us from ancient times. It was also out of filial piety that Britanicus pursued his father's original conquests in Britain, to a degree that perhaps exceeded the actual value of the province. The invasion of Munster in 60 A.D. by Governor Paulus, made in response to the depredations of Irish pirates on the loosely defended coasts of newly Roman Britain, occasioned the first permanent foothold of the Roman Empire in Ireland. The conquest of the island was not completed, however, until fifty years later under the Emperor Trajan.

http://pages.prodigy.net/aesir/irish.htm

0 Replies

The Roman Empire never included Ireland.

0 Replies

Jeeze, that's dense . . . i quote Mr. Warner to demonstrate that he attempts to make his point by innuendo and by re-defining terms to suit his thesis. The point of quoting him is to demonstrate the shakey ground upon which he makes his assertion.

What is even more ludicrous is that your second link is to a work of fiction. You are just making it look worse for yourself, Fox . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

One assumes that you are addressing Italmassamortgato, who seems not to have known that definition of tenor. Your assertion, is, however, without foundation.

OK, here's some "foundation" for: Sometimes reducing tenor can result in an improvement

ten·or
"3 : a continuance in a course, movement, or activity"

Sometimes discontinuing a particular course will result in initiating an improved course.

A popular definition of insanity is repeating the exact same thing over and over, expecting a different result each time.

0 Replies

I'm little interested in what assert popular definitions to be, but on the basis of what you've just provided, you indict yourself as insane.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I'm little interested in what assert popular definitions to be, but on the basis of what you've just provided, you indict yourself as insane.

You repeatedly disagree with and then insult your adversaries expecting what: the same or different result?

0 Replies

Looks like set and I are from the same school; we like to show who the insane ones are on a2k.

0 Replies

Well, modern scholars are pretty much agreed that the Irish developed without profound influence from the Roman Empire, but most seem to agree that at least the Romans considered Hibernia to be a Roman Province and, if the more recent archaeological finds are accurately interpreted, the Romans were definitely there at least for awhile.

All the maps of the late Roman Empire include Hibernia.

But what do I know? I'm sure my professors, all with PHD's in history, are all stupid or, as CI seems to think, insane.

http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/Courses/maps/fullmap1.jpg

0 Replies

Hibernia means the land of winter. That by itself is ample evidence that the Romans had never been there. Look at your map again, the island of Ireland, and Scotland at the northern end of Britain are both clearly outside the Empire. I suspect that those who taught the courses in which you allegedly "learned" these things knew whereof they spoke--i also suspect that you just didn't get it.

0 Replies

They are outside the outlined portion because of the lack of consensus on the matter. They also are included as "clickable" to zoom in on them on this particular map which areas that were clearly outside the Roman Empire are not.

Oh, and part of the final exam included a paper on Hibernia and St. Patrick and the Catholic influence of this area. I made an A+. And the subject of this particular part of the course was the Roman Empire.

0 Replies

You'd better provide a link then, because i took the properties url from the image you linked, and i got no clickable link.

The Romans had a name for what we call Scandinavia--Ultima Thule. Do you propose that this means the Norge and the Goths were conquered by the Romans.

You need to stop making sh!t up before you've got your ducks in a row. You linked a work of fiction above, so you apparently just rushed out looking for links, and didn't bother to read the material you were linking.

0 Replies

So we have typical Fox evidence--dubious or ridiculous links, and assertions about what you personally know. In short, we've got no evidence at all.

0 Replies

If all your professors with PhDs in history claimed Ireland was within the Roman Empire, I would suggest you go to another school.

0 Replies

Well I provided links which you have not provided. So my information is at least as credible as yours.

0 Replies

You're the one making the extraordinary claim, the burden of proof is on you. You've claimed that Ireland was a part of the Roman empire. You have failed to demonstrate the case. You just come out with the same crap you've spewed on us since you first arrived here--the contention that you are better educated and informed than anyone else here. Frankly, i grew sick of your ignorance coupled with your conceit years ago.

Claiming that Ireland was ever a part of the Roman empire is an extraordinary claim. You have not proven that claim.

0 Replies

fox, You reflect the poor understanding of geography from American education of late; your map does not include Ireland as part of the Roman Empire. Your map shows borders with colors that were under the Roman Empire. Ireland does not have any color surrounding it. Are you this dense in school?

0 Replies

Not a historian, but, as an (idiot) Irishman, it's news to me that Ireland was ever part of the Roman Empire.

Found this on google, which suggests the opposite:

Quote:

AGRICOLA, Gnaeus Julius
(40 AD - 93 AD) Roman governor of Britain, who was made famous by the writings of his son-in law Tacitus. He did much to "Romanise" Britain. He intended to conquer the whole of Britain, including Scotland, and also Ireland, but he was recalled to Rome.

link:

http://www.hyper-former.com/hyper1/ROMAN.HTM

0 Replies

US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know