The Ravings of Demented Rabbits

Right. You would have, of course, realized that the UN/NATO and all the other silly organizations that require our troops to swear to multiple allegiances would fall under my wrath there, not just the UN. Did you actually think I was a pro-NATO fan or something? Come on now, Marius. =p

And of course, your tirade against British imperialism is sad. You see, you're looking at imperialism from the wrong angle here. You're taking a bunch of disgruntled farmers and merchants in the COLONIES and giving their little song and dance about British tyranny. Good ol' King George hardly fits the raging, monstrous despot model of your little absolutist dictator. And Great Britain at the turn of the 18c century makes for a poor Third Reich or Husseinian Iraq.

And for all good history students who study the period, we note how many of the colonists complaints were of a poor standard. Complaining about troop levels? Puhleaz, the colonial legislatures in the colonies didn't bother taking the time to vote enough money for their militias and bombarded London with pleas for more British troops on an annual basis because their militias couldn't stop Indian raids and French interference throughout the Ohio River Valley, deep into the South, and even in Pennsylvania and New England proper. They needed English troops, but they weren't willing to pay for them, and English taxpayers footed massive spending bills in the Parliament to keep the Royal Navy squadrons in New England and in the Carribean and their regiments in the New World to keep the French and Indians at bay.

And most of their other squabbles arose from specific instances that arose from time to time. Things were a bit different in colonial America, and it was rather suspect for the colonists to expect to be embraced as though they were equals to the Londonians. Life wasn't bad, but some dudes wanted a revolution and by the grace of Almighty God they somehow managed to pull it off. Not to suggest the end result was all that bad, I'm all about waving my American flag. *waves it*

But yeah, you forget the benefits of imperialism. The centralized authority, the efficient bureaucracy, streamlined justice, and most importantly, the honor and glory of the Patrie. Your flags and standards are mounted on steeples and staffs all over a pretty map, your soldiers wear the finest uniforms, and history will forever remember your great deeds. Imperialism is only bad if you resist it. Such as those poor fools who tried to resist Napoleon's legions. Honor and glory. Are those sacred words inscribed in your heart and mind, citizen? Where is your passion, your pride!? Napoleon's men died for him and for the honor and glory of their nation. The Duke of Marlborough's men and the soldiers of Marshals Villars, Boufflers, Vendome, and company died in their finest for the honor and glory of their imperial nations. Gloria in excelsis Deo!

Honor and glory are useless to a dead man. And justice is, much like beauty, only valid in the eye of the beholder. Honor, glory, justice. You don't live in the late 1800s, Marechal. You should probably look into reality before it kicks you in your honor-bound arse. ;)

Well, the first part of that was sane and coherent, anyway.

True, English colonial rule was rather more benevolent than was practiced in many other places. Which fails to explain the Spanish example, of course. And leaves out other, far less benign English occupations, like, say, Ireland or Australia, not to mention India. India was so happy about all of it, they had a couple revolts, as I recall.

Too, I understand the Revolutionary War and the causes of such fairly well. While many of the colonial grievences WERE inflated, some were not. Representation was one of them, to my mind. But then I'm full of newfangled Enlightenment ideas like the equality of man, and such as that.

And we note that the benefits of imperialism were SO beneficial to the imperialized, they all never rebelled, and wanted to stay with the Empire forever and ever...

Oh wait, sorry. This is reality.

As to the workingness of imperialism in the here and now, let us ponder for a moment the French experience in Vietnam for a moment, as well as the cheap and easy availability of things like the AK-47 and such as that.

And we're of course going to ignore the N@p0|30n r0x0rz j00 crap.

Damn you both. I'm not saying we should practice imperialism in 2004. God damnit, Marius. You know I'm all about democracy and secret police and the like. Imperialism had its time and place in Western Civ, I'm not suggesting we ressurect it in entirety, or even to any significant degree.

And yeah, I lose points for the last paragraph or two. :p I got carried away in my zeal to proclaim the righteousness of the cause.

As far as Spanish imperialism goes, that was more of the bad kind, just as the Democratic Republic of North Korea is of the bad kind of democratic republics. The whole problem with Spain was largely the history of the Peninsula, which I reckon I don't need to recap for us here since all of us are history type persons. The whole Moorish experience and the Reconquista and the Spanish Church all had something to do with the fact Spanish imperialism was of the more ugly strain from the 15-18th centuries and beyond. Contrast that with the imperialist armies of the French Bourbons and the British Hanoverians as they tromped around back and forth across the Rhine heaping honor and glory upon their nations amidst the fluttering of flags and triumphal marches of their bands.

And Ireland, was again, a matter of history. As Scotland. Hell, even Wales to some extent. You're gonna have shit like that given those circumstances. Goes back to the post-classical ages and such were you got all those counties and lordships and feudal-whatevers. In order to BUILD a nation, my dear Marius, it is necessary to hammer those elements together. Same is true of France, Spain, even Germany. States had to be built out of those little feudal lands, and that usually had to be done with a little force. Ireland was naturally going to be part of England, just as Britanny was doomed to be joined to France, etc. And Ireland is such a damn mess with the religion thing, I mean, DUH, you're going to have to have a dozen battalions of regular foot stationed in Ireland to make sure the people don't kill each other and then don't come killing you. England without Ireland is like France without Savoy or Brittany or Gascony. And British rule of India wasn't top notch, I won't argue the obvious.

And I would gladly argue many of those "imperialized" did end up, in the long run, better of because of it. We note the glaring exception of the entire Continent of Africa, save Egypt, but as far as Japan, the Americas, and &c. go, they came out of it with more technology and power than they could fathom. All the Americas, in fact, were made into nations because OF imperialism, I would argue. All the Latin American revolutions were led by men who learned western warfare and western government from their imperial oppressors and used that against them to build their own nations along western models and as I recall, none of them have gone back to pre-western model of tribal subsistance & hunting/gathering. Feel free to correct me, though.

Again, within its context, with exceptions, but a general rule, western imperialism during the 18th century was largely beneficial in the long run for most parties. Just so you don't get all flustered, I'm NOT arguing that we adopt imperialism or anything absurd like that, but I am arguing that the system gets bashed and is unappreciated in our day and age and I'm all about defending it. So yeah.

I ... must ... resist ... honor ... glory. *waves flag*

Seeing as how this debate is really interesting, I'm just going to sit and listen to you two on the major issues, while noting on a semi-tangent that my favorite passage in the DoI is this:
"He has sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance."

I mean, they sound like locusts, which I'm sure was the intent. It's funny! Right? *looks around for signs of laughter*

*gives up, slinks off to translate Latin*

P.S. BTW, just totally from one person's biased observation of your writing style over the past two years, your arguing is getting a lot better, Marechal. Either that or maybe it's just the first time I've really seen a history argument between you two. In any case, this is good stuff.

*gets out popcorn, sits back*

I'll talk some more about all of this later. I have to get to class in like 10 minutes. Until then, I'll leave you all with a couple of replies to Regina:

I mean, they sound like locusts, which I'm sure was the intent. It's funny! Right? *looks around for signs of laughter*

_I_ was amused by it, at any rate. Though I think I forgot it in my list up there. Ah well.

P.S. BTW, just totally from one person's biased observation of your writing style over the past two years, your arguing is getting a lot better, Marechal. Either that or maybe it's just the first time I've really seen a history argument between you two. In any case, this is good stuff.

You're right, actually. His debating IS getting better, with the exception of that honor and glory Napoleon thing in the first reply. *flogs the dead horse deader*

I think this is the first history debate we've had here. We have a lot of them on ICQ, actually, mostly about me defending the world against Napoleonic lunacy. The old Tonto boards were filled with political/historical debating, be it Marechal and me, _zorro and me, whatever. I actually sort of miss that.

But yeah. Look up the Tonto Evolution thread from a couple years back, and note the comparison. Yer getting better. ;)

More on the merits of imperialism and perhaps a bit on historical judgement calls and the task of the historian later, tonight or tomorrow. We'll see.

"I actually sort of miss that."

Me too, but I'd go as far as removing the sort of too ;)

And I'm completely in line with regi here, though I prefer chips over popcorn :P

I've been debating history since the days of John Paul Jones, to steal a parody from "Thirteen Days." It's really nothing new, I just chose not to do it all that often which is why you think this is nice. I, on the other hand, would be easily able to argue that my arguments posted here on this little message blog are quite petty and mean (not nasty mean) compared to *actual* arguments I make in history papers I present in college. I am a college sophmore after all and a teaching assistant in the history department with upper level classes under my belt. Trust me, if you want to see real quality work it isn't here on the forums and usually not over ICQ. I would argue that, to a certain extent, one cannot make a completely true and proper argument over this medium, nice though it is. If you haven't already saluted Citizen Marius for his website, I compel you to do so now. In the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, I compel you.

That being said, blah, blah, imperialism as it was applied by the major European powers amongst themselves in the eighteenth century on the Continent and the high seas was indeed a glorious and honorable endeavour. It wasn't quite so good for those in the New World and abroad, it wasn't nearly so honorable and glorious, and as Marius can know doubt guess where this is going---> I would argue that is because of the extrordinary conditions of the New World/abroad where you had these people who just didn't want to fight with gentlemen officers, powdered wigs, fluttering banners, regimental bands, sabres, curiasses, and volley fire. These people wanted to fight with sticks, stones, and arrows. They wanted to ambush and infiltrate and eat the dead. Imperialist glory was won on the fields of Malplaquet, Blenheim, Ramillies, and at Lille, not at Isandlhwana, Fort Dequesne, or Kabul (1842). Although, of course, obviously those had their places in imperialism by its very definition. :p

Marechal, I'd love to see some of those things you've written - if you've got a paper you're really proud of or something, by all means send it to me. :)

Also, this reminds me of something we were talking about in history a few weeks ago:

(Yes, I know, I said I wouldn't get involved. So sue me.)

During pre-history and the Middle Ages (i.e., not Rome) the East (which for me includes Greece) was the center of all learning and culture. If you wanted wisdom and riches, you went to a big Eastern court. Then around the Renaissance, that began to change, and by, um, post-Renaissance Europe (I know there is some other name for it but I can't think of it, because it's Friday afternoon and I am mostly done thinking for the day :P), the West became the center of culture and learning, and by the 19th century you got white superiority and imperialism and the White Man's Burden (memorably summarized by one of my classmates, tongue-in-cheek, as "It's hard being white.") And I was wondering about tracing that shift, from Eastern to Western superiority. And this is tied into imperialism, sort of.

So yeah. The floor is open. Enlighten me, O history majors.

Hey, that's one tidbit about history that I do know- I think "post-Renaissance Europe" is just called "early modern Europe."

-Griselda

Or more specifically, the Enlightenment. (18th century) But there's a bit of a gap between that and the Ren., so its usually called the Age of Exploration. That being said, we could argue about that until Christ returns in all His glory, because every history text you read will have their own labels and dates for each period.

And as for Eastern to Western ... errr ... that's hard to do since really the West only had sporadic contact with the East pretty much until the 19th century ... now if we define East as ... Middle East/Near East, then its a different ballgame. Referring to my previous remark above, this is open to debate and contention. I would argue the West began its rise by the Reformation, or by the end of the last major Crusade. A lot of the Eastern "superiority" (using your term) was imported from the Holy Land to the rest of Europe. And by 1517 you had the major states forming themselves and your systems in place and warfare evolving to the next level, surpassing the East.

Although we could also contend that the East wasn't truly beaten until 1683 when the one hundred thousand godless pagan infidel Muslim Ottomans outside Vienna were routed by the Christians. And then we could argue about whether or not the Ottoman Empire was the best representative of Eastern tradition by 1683 or whether their power was already gone ... blah, blah, blah.

Slow down, folks. I can only reply so fast. ;)

The term "early modern" varies. I've seen everything from Marechal's definition of it, to the 17th/18th centuries, to the entire period from about 1450 to 1815. Mostly I've come across it in reference to the post-Rennaisance/pre-Industrial Revolution period, though. So roughly the 17th/18th and a tiny bit of the 19th centuries. But anyway.

As Marechal notes, the East/West thing is really shaky. Superficially, yes, the trend was from East->West, flipping to West->East. But it gets sort of strange when you dig a bit deeper.

Greece, for the record is generally considered "Western". You could make some arguments that they're "Eastern", but that would go against everything they thought about the subject. Certainly they distinguished between themselves and the Easterners (read: Persians).

They did, however, import quite a few things from older Eastern civilizations - myths, gods, writing, and that other thing I want to mention but seem to be spacing on.

OTOH, while we generally count Egypt and Mesopotamia as part of the Western tradition because we can, Greece and to a far lesser extent until much later Israel are really the foundations of our civilization. Whether Israel can really be considered "Western" until Roman times is fairly debatable, however.

The real "East", China, India, and surroundings, of course developed more or less independently, despite contacts between East/West through Mesopotamia and Persia as early or earlier than Alexander the Great.

Meanwhile, as the Greeks colonized lands, those lands came of age, and a little town called Rome started conquering the world, Greek and later Greco-Roman culture spread throughout Europe, while the civilizations of the Middle East developed their own cultures and scholarly traditions. This blurred from time to time - The Romans imported eastern gods such as Isis, but in turn conquered Egypt and the eastern fringe of the Mediterranean.

With the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 or so, Western Europe eventually went into the popularly known "Dark Ages" (if they were all that dark or not is subject to some amount of debate), while the Eastern Roman Empire continued to develop.

Arabic civilization, when it rose, owed much to many - there are Persian influences, as well as Roman - the Arabs kept the Roman learning alive, after all. Through back and forth conquest and the Crusades, Western Europe eventually gained much of it back, plus their own unique developments, at the same time the Ottoman Empire stagnated.

You can debate on when the rise began - Marechal's date is as good as any, though I would put it some sixty or seventy years earlier. Regardless of the military realities, by 1517 the Ottoman Empire had passed from the forefront of culture and learning into being a backwater. The same is true, learning-wise, of China and Japan and India, though all three had enormously rich cultures.

With the rise of Western European military superiority combined with ocean-going warships and the mercantile class, everybody else's chances pretty much went to 0. Cue the rise of imperialism, etc around the 1450s. And from there you get a variety of results - the Middle East and Far East came to accomodations with European technology but not culture, Africa absorbed at least superficial layers of both, and the Americas essentially went European.

The racism thing's an even more different issue, also one which I lack the necessary background to talk about well. Suffice it to say that anybody with a fairly civilized culture is going to feel pretty superior to everybody else, be it a 19th century European, a Chinese noble, or an Egyptian priest under the pharoahs.

Tying it into imperialism, well, let's get to that. In the NEXT post.

And now let us talk about imperialism.

War, conquest, and annexation have of course existed throughout history. Imperialism is a differnt sort of animal. In specific, it's largely designed for resource exploitation. Whereas your average conquest eventually results in roughly equal classes of citizens in the conqueror and conquered, imperialism consciously keeps the conquered as a lower class, whether free or not.

There's all sorts of ideology that goes along with this sort of thing. The White Man's Burden - the idea that white men must bear the burden of civilizing and Christianizing the "lesser" races, can apply all over the place - to the Arabs and Chinese, among others, in different circumstances. The exact dating of the White Man's Burden thing escapes me, but the ideas had been floating around for quite some time - conversion by the sword since at least the Crusades, and the civilizing mission since Roman, if not Greek, times.

That having been said, the impetus for imperialism amongst Europeans dates back to the rise of mercantilism, from the 13th or 14th century or so. With an expanding world view, Europe began looking to China and India for various things, amongst them trade goods. With the collapse of overland trade with the Mongols and the Ottomans, Europe began looking to seaborne trade. Around the mid-15th century, at the same time the Rennaisance was going full bore and Constantinople was falling to the infidel Turk, Western Europeans had become masters of seafaring and navigation, and were beginning to trade up and down the African coast. By 1492, they were even venturing across the Atlantic.

By the 16th century, with the Spanish Reconquista complete, Spain and Portugul at least could look to carving out some new territory. Africa was mostly spared, still, but the Americas were ruthlessly plundered, and Spain and Portugul became fantastical rich, and continued to be for at least two or three centuries after.

England and France got in the game late, and mostly in the Americas. Furs, tobacco, and plundering Spanish fleets made them rich, as well.

Eventually, of course, everyone finally made it around to China, but not in force until the 18th century, after which time Southeast Asia and India got screwed. China was still BIG, and Japan became all but closed in the 1600s.

Fast forward. It's the 1800s. America has been sucked dry, and has revolted in any case. Spain's days in the sun are all but over, Portugul is a non-entity. Too, the Islamic world has become weak.

Too, the Industrial Revolution was beginning to change things - markets were important (the famous Atlantic triangle of American history being one example), as were resources. Africa became suitable for both, and Asia had a LOT of people, so by World War I, Europe has pretty much taken over the world. India is a British colony; China is in theory independent but only in name; Japan has successfully Westernized and is becoming a colonial power in its own right; and after World War I, the Ottoman Empire is gobbled up by France and Britain as League of Nations mandates (read: effective colonies).

World War II effectively put an end to the colonial system, by virtue of changing values combined with the utter exhaustion of the belligerant powers. Japan, of course, lost. France lost most of her colonies when the Nazis invaded, and pretty much everybody started abandoning their colonies for the next thirty years. Today, real live colonial imperialism is pretty much dead.

Now. All of that having been said, let's talk about the effects of imperialism. It varies by colonial power by era:

French colonialism in America was pretty benign. They got along fairly well with the natives, didn't push Christianity too hard, and didn't push a lot of settlements. It wasn't even particularly racist. I know less about their Asian and African colonies, but from everything I can tell, it wasn't near as benign. Certainly it was profoundly racist as all 19th century colonialism was, to the point where modern France has VERY serious issues with the subject (think of it about like the 1960s in the US)

Spanish colonial imperialism was atrocious. They made almost no pretenses about being civilizing or Christianizing - they were there for the loot. Estimates vary on how many natives died in the Spanish conquest of the Americas, but the upper end is somewhere around 90% from rampant disease combined with overwork. Too, they practiced something close to slavery on a wide scale, and the end result looks something like the pre-Civil War South writ large - white landowners scattered all over, ruling disadvantaged natives. Their brutality is legendary - killings for fun, feeding people to war dogs, you name it.

Insamuch as Japan managed as a colonial power, they were brutal on the Spanish level, and did most of the same things.

British colonial imperialism is something different from both others. For one, they exported enormous amounts of their people, starting with Ireland on a small scale, rising to enormous numbers in the Americas and Australia.

Note that I count Ireland as a colony. England eventually gained dominance over all of their islands, but had different policies. Wales eventually became almost a part of England, enough so that the Tudors I believe had Welsh ancestry. Scotland managed to come to an almost equal accomodation. Ireland got screwed - conquered, colonized by Englishmen, and repressed for hundreds of years.

In any case, transportation led to what has been termed an exclusionary policy on the part of the British. Instead of incorporating the American Indian, they killed him and took his land, with some exceptions. This was continued by the United States, of course. I know less about later British colonial policy, but from what I know it's run of the mill - use of native labor, racism, and all that.

What did all of this do, you ask? We'll have to go region by region for that one.

Central/South America: Screwed. Screwed awfully, no less. Most of the countries have barely working governments, when they work, civil services, infrastructure, and everything are either nonexistant or godawful out of date. This hasn't changed at all since the Spanish days. Mexico, we note, is one of the best of the Latin American states, and anybody who knows anything about Mexico knows that isn't saying an awful lot.

Africa: With the sole exceptions of, say, Egypt and South Africa, screwed even harder than Latin America. They're underdeveloped and always have been. They've got crap for governments in the most cases, and disease is pretty bad. For values of "pretty bad" == to Sub-Saharan Africa having something like a 20% AIDS rate.

Middle East: Sort of screwed. Oil has done much for those countries with it, though most of the beneficiaries have been upper class. They're rich enough to almost see it, poor enough to not quite be it, to misquote the song. The most of them are better off than Africa and Latin America, but only by comparison.

Asia is a mixed bag. Japan, by virtue of being a colonial power in and of itself, is part of the First World, one of the richest and most developed nations on the planet. China, India, and Korea are fairly well off by Third World standards, for various reasons. Korea and India had much, much investment and some effective leadership. China got the effective leader with Mao, but also a shitty economic plan. They're still pulling out of that, but they're doing it very very well. Everybody else over there is, of course, screwed.

North America, Australia: Both of these not only got in on the ground floor of everything, they were treated better than other colonies, and so came out very very well. Both are in the First World today, and the United States is, of course, the United States.

With the exception of North America, Australia, and a couple of others, the map of the poorest nations on Earth corresponds pretty much evenly with former colonies.

"Again, within its context, with exceptions, but a general rule, western imperialism during the 18th century was largely beneficial in the long run for most parties."

I disagree. Is the average Kenyan, the average Somali, the average Cambodian, better off today than they were in, say, 1700? No, I would say they are not.

I would be remiss if I failed to mention Europe in this. They, of course, were the great winners. The influx of wealth from empire immeasurably helped the lot of them, to the point where Europe essentially IS the First World.

So, yeah. If we're saying beneficial for most parties in the sense that Brutus is an honorable man, sure, imperialism was a good thing.

You realize that between you two, you have just summarized my entire year-long modern history course. :P Although I did ask for enlightenment!

Thinking, Marius, that you should set up some form of forums here for historical debates, because comment reply boxes are not the best format. ;)

I will come up with some semi-suitable REAL reply later. :P

cool stuff :D

Now, if only I actually had history, I could use this...

Hey, I can setup a forum in about two seconds. :p

And that was all good and stuff, except for Portugul, which is actually Portugal, but yeah, nodding of the head. And of course, you covered 15/16th century Spanish imperialism and 19th century post-industrial revolution imperialism ... not the 18th century imperialism as practiced by the major European powers. :p

Also, Spain did not enjoy the blessings of plundering the Americas for 2-3 centuries, although you noted that was pretty much a generalization. Spain actually only got about a century's worth of goodness out of the Americas, and then bad things happened. Like the English and Dutch shredding their treasure fleets. And of course, the infamous inflation of 17th century Spain. Bankrupt monarchy. Factious state. Tenuous relations with the other European powers. And by 1700 with their insane monarch dying, Spain became a paradeground for the Habsburg, French, and Anglo-allied armies as they marched around and blew stuff up. The only prize worth having was the Asiento. (You should all know what that is.)

And I would point out the 90% being wiped out by disease, was going to happen whether the Spanish repressed the Natives or made peace with them. You see, disease doesn't play by the rules of war or peace, it does its own thing. The natives were doomed the moment Columbus stepped ashore, it was only a matter of time before prolonged contact brought them down. But quite correct on the enslavement of the remainder and their brutal treatment. Again, outside of the scope here.

Btw, are you part-Irish? Or just an IRA member? They seem to be a major theme on the Marius soapbox lately. Ireland this, Ireland that.

Incidentally, I caught a bit about Marius the other day on the History Channel. Revolutionized the Roman army. & Stuff.

Some days I spell better than others. *shrug*

I covered 18th century imperialism in a couple of spots, mostly with regards to America, and sort of glossed on Asia. But I did mention it.

I'm soapboxing about Ireland? Since when?

History Channel did Marius, huh? Cool.

Yeah, I was flipping around channels on Sunday afternoon before the Super Bowl, I think, or something, and there was a demo with Roman-esque dudes fighting, so I watched for a few minutes. Talking about changes in the Roman army from an elite upper class organization to the more ... "open" (I expended all my vocabulary on my history paper this morning.) institution which was led by some dude named Marius. :p I would imagine that would be the same Gaius Marius fella you derive your name from. Feel free to toss me Roman reading stuff since I am done with John Churchill and am finishing up Luther's first volume. I need some Roman reading. Caesar, even, since you always seem to harp about him.

And yes, you now have Ireland as part of your platform. Or at least the last two weeks or so that we've talked history over ICQ and here. Bleeding Irish over there, or something. :p St. Patrick's Day is at least a month off, as I recall. Wolfe does sound Irish though... hrm.

Anywho, this thread is way, way too long. I quit.

It's not a thread, it's a comments...something :P

But I agree. New update on this subject requested.

You could read McCullough, who got both me and Marius into Roman history, although there are some...erm...trashy passages which you may not appreciate. Let me say this: It is really good reading - a novelized series of the decline of the Roman Republic and the rise of Caesar, but not a scholarly textbook type thing. She does the political stuff well, too.

Y'know what? Start with First Man in Rome, if you like it read Grass Crown and Fortune's Favorites, and then stop before she goes into Caesar Can Do No Wrong mode.

And I have some more ancient world reading on my bedside table...lessee:
The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era
The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (pagan background and how pagans saw Christians, basically)
The Mammoth book of Eyewitness Ancient Rome (which is this big primary source collection thing)

But the main pile that's growing is my medieval history pile. I cannot wait to get to that. I have sooo many books on medieval times I want to read. The Dark Ages in particular are interesting.

You really need to post that reading list, methinks. Because now you've got ME wanting to read all that.

I'll second the McCullough books. They're fiction, sure, but nothing else I've read, including dedicated books on the subject, comes anywhere close to describing the life and politics of the Roman Republic as well as the first three McCulloughs. Had a professor who actually told me he let people use them in papers, they were that good.

That having been said, Michael Grant's A History of Rome is an excellent overview of the Romans. Gibbon, of course, is the master, but I've never been able to sit down and read him, so I dunno. Too, I have a pretty good book on Roman life sitting around, but I forget the name. If anybody's interested, I'll check it out later.

And yeah. Marius is the guy who did the whole "opening" thing. Professional Head Count armies are where it's at, yo.

And this Ireland thing is getting way overblown. Way.