Prev: RE: Destroyers Next: Re: [OT]: Trailers, John A, and Barbarians

Re: [OT] barbarians

From: Michael Llaneza <imperialdispatches@y...>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 20:09:59 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [OT] barbarians

Now laddie, by "worth having" in this case they mean "worth what it
would cost"
which would be every legion they had - plus one.

--- "Barclay, Tom" <tomb@bitheads.com> wrote:
> John said:
> Yup.	Remember, the original definition of the term
> now rendered "barbarian" was "Anyone not Greek."  This
> evolved into "Anyone not Roman" when they conquered
> the part of the world worth having.
> 
> Tom Replies:
> Hmmm. I musta missed that in history. I agree with your comment about
"Not
> Greek" and "Not Roman" meaning (in their eyes) barbarians. OTOH, since
they
> never conquered the land of the Kelts and Druids (just build bleedin'
> Hadrian's Wall) which is now called Scotland, I can't possibly see how
you
> conclude "they conquered the part of the world worth having". Sorry
John,
> but in this one instance, you're just plain wrong. ;) 
> 
> Tom
> Aut Augere Au Mori.... (my Clan motto).... ;)
> 
> 
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 


Prev: RE: Destroyers Next: Re: [OT]: Trailers, John A, and Barbarians