Search results

I would say yes that's basically how the Germans took Rome out.

Sure there's be differences due to culture and such.

Why wouldn't they?

That certainly didn't help alot.

No it certainly is the colloquial use of "imperalism". Is definitely talking about European conquest keep being a pedantic ass though. It's amuses me.

It never did it's just less obvious now usally. What do you think the Crimea thing, or China's current colonization of Africa aren't landgrabs?

Yep that was my point though. The Euro conquests were only different in scale.

Not really the Bantu people's invaded colnized and genocided all kinds of folks. They just lacked the tech to do so worldwide. Conquest is a human constant just like music or art. Personally I always foud it hilariously hypocrisy. When nation's {like the jncans and Aztecs and a bunch other}. Try...

They in fact did though? A significant part of the revolution. Was anger over tue British insistentence on not exapnidng west into Indian lands. Further 1812 was in part fought due to British support of various anti American tribes.

Idfia or natives?

We actually were and it caused the revolution. As we rejected the crowns legitimacy kind of a momentous thing. Surprised you didn't realize that.

16th-19th ie the age of colonialism. Opionons on specific periods or nation's are fine. Really though I intended to get an overview on the whole period.

So you don't think colinized nation's gotanh benefits from it at all? No matter how much horror accompanied it.

"True" isn't relavant here in asking for opionons. Albiet justified opionons but still opionons. So basically taken in it's entiertiy across the entire timeframe including all nation's. Do you think it was a net positive negative or neutral.

Yep I only addressed the Romans because Carl mentioned them. This thread is intended for European(16th century) empiress. Which are the only ones objected to by the mainstream. Sure the beligins we're dicks I was asking more in aggregate though.

So you realize I tottally said they didn't so right? Just only when convient for them and or important [Ceaser] folks wanted it. Of course ossmois would convert some. As the Roman culture was objectively superior to those around them. As demonstrated by them stomping on everyone around them for...

Frankly Scotty that's a cop out and you know it. "Imperalism" in the modern context very very much. Refers directly and explicitly refers. To the European conquest of the world. Don't play bullshitsemantic games. Your better then that bro.

So do you think it's a good or bad thing? (The Romans genrally didn't intergrate folks unless convient. [See the Soci war] or politically xpident[Ceaser allowing Gauls into the Senate. To weight it in his favour].

As a historical force do you consider imperalism. To be bad,neutral,or good? Please justify and or explain why you hold this position.