Soldato
I need to use Wikipedia more.
Oh yeah bring up the fact Britain banned it after raking in billions of profit first.
That makes it all okay.
Oh yeah bring up the fact Britain banned it after raking in billions of profit first.
That makes it all okay.
'Hi, I'd like to join the army. It's my dream job!'
'OK, what's your background? Any related experience or qualifications?'
'Yes! I carefully prepared for this role by taking a degree in classical Greek literature at the University of Wolverhampton.'
'Perfect, welcome to HM armed forces!'
It's weird because he has no qualifications relevant to police work. So if that was his dream job, why didn't he study something connected to policing?
Like the BBC typical Roman family kids sketch from not too long ago?
[relevant picture]
*awaits the slew of responses trying to advocate the roman black legions...
Because those that tend to win the wars tend to re-write history to favour themselves.
Britains Empire built on slaves and resources stolen from other states.
Even to this day British companies still have slaves like all the tea plantations abroad, where people are born into it and their whole lives are spent on the plantation working until they die.
All the innocents massacred along the way but it's okay because we did some good here and there with all the stolen wealth.
Who cares? Its a picture, people are obsessed with colour.Because that doesn't matter to the job. Having a degree is considered important.The subject of the degree is considered far less important or completely irrelevant. That might not be the best approach, but it is how it is.
That's far from the worst example. Roman citizens had the right of free movement within the empire and there were some good reasons for Romans from elsewhere in the empire to move to Britain. By the time most of Britain became part of the Roman empire, there were a lot of Romans with darker skin (all of North Africa had been Roman for a couple of centuries by that time). Travelling from north Africa to Britain wasn't a particularly big deal at that time - boat along the coast all the way, only the last couple of dozen miles with any significant degree of risk. I'm sure that some Romans moved to Britain and that some of those Romans had darker skin.
While it looks like the cartoonist who made the picture you quote was trying to portray a Roman soldier (and doing a pretty bad job of it, e.g. bronze muscle cuirass on a Roman legionary!) and there were a lot of Roman soliders stationed in Britain and some of them would have had families there and some of them would have retired there (hard to tell intended age from a cartoon, but he might be old enough to have served for long enough to retire) and some of them might have had darker skin (although AFAIK the legions stationed in Britain were all European), I think there would have been some Roman civilians who moved to Britain. There were some good reasons for doing so. Earlier on, there would have been good opportunities in the new province of Britannia as it was mostly Romanising. Lots of building work, for example, both civilian and governmental. Later on, there were times when it might be prudent for a Roman to get as far away from Rome as possible while remaining in the empire and Britain fitted that bill. The reign of Commodus comes to mind.
If they were depicting a very small minority of Romans in Britain having darker skin, it would be historically plausible.
Who cares? Its a picture, people are obsessed with colour.
People who care about truth care. Lying about the past because it's politically useful to do so is not a good thing. Nor is obsessing over skin colour, which is another part of the reason why some of us object to lying about the past to change skin colours. You're targetting the wrong people - the people who are obsessed with skin colour are the ones presenting a false history for that purpose.
By the way, a large part of the problem in getting accurate information on the subject is that many people in the past were not obsessed with skin colour. For example, we know that some people migrated from north Africa to England in the high medieval period, but we have hardly any idea how many because it wasn't considered of any importance. It's only mentioned in passing in some accounts of journeys and from a few human remains from the period.
we won a war. how it happened is immaterial.Not really. Anyone can win a war all you need is more or better resources than your opponent.
This is proven by the fact a white supremacist who believed in eugenics was in charge of the UK at the time Hitler was attacking europe at the time.
Also did the UK win the war? Or did Germany spread themselves too thin? Also Germany was fighting the world not just the UK. I'm sure Africa, Asia, Russia and America would disagree with the fact the UK single handedly saved the day.
This is what I mean. People who live here are deluded. It was only a matter of time before Germany fell as they ran out of resources and allies.
we won a war. how it happened is immaterial.
That's far from the worst example. Roman citizens had the right of free movement within the empire and there were some good reasons for Romans from elsewhere in the empire to move to Britain. By the time most of Britain became part of the Roman empire, there were a lot of Romans with darker skin (all of North Africa had been Roman for a couple of centuries by that time). Travelling from north Africa to Britain wasn't a particularly big deal at that time - boat along the coast all the way, only the last couple of dozen miles with any significant degree of risk. I'm sure that some Romans moved to Britain and that some of those Romans had darker skin.
While it looks like the cartoonist who made the picture you quote was trying to portray a Roman soldier (and doing a pretty bad job of it, e.g. bronze muscle cuirass on a Roman legionary!) and there were a lot of Roman soliders stationed in Britain and some of them would have had families there and some of them would have retired there (hard to tell intended age from a cartoon, but he might be old enough to have served for long enough to retire) and some of them might have had darker skin (although AFAIK the legions stationed in Britain were all European), I think there would have been some Roman civilians who moved to Britain. There were some good reasons for doing so. Earlier on, there would have been good opportunities in the new province of Britannia as it was mostly Romanising. Lots of building work, for example, both civilian and governmental. Later on, there were times when it might be prudent for a Roman to get as far away from Rome as possible while remaining in the empire and Britain fitted that bill. The reign of Commodus comes to mind.
If they were depicting a very small minority of Romans in Britain having darker skin, it would be historically plausible.
People who care about truth care. Lying about the past because it's politically useful to do so is not a good thing. Nor is obsessing over skin colour, which is another part of the reason why some of us object to lying about the past to change skin colours. You're targetting the wrong people - the people who are obsessed with skin colour are the ones presenting a false history for that purpose.
By the way, a large part of the problem in getting accurate information on the subject is that many people in the past were not obsessed with skin colour. For example, we know that some people migrated from north Africa to England in the high medieval period, but we have hardly any idea how many because it wasn't considered of any importance. It's only mentioned in passing in some accounts of journeys and from a few human remains from the period.
I agree fully with this. As a history graduate I can acknowledge it's a big problem in the field of study with garbage academia.
Certain groups have been trying to hijack race and colour to prove their narrative, as an example that ancient Egyptians were in fact sub Saharan African black, claiming that Western history has white washed them.
I don't really care what colour actor plays a historical role on TV (nobody has a right to that outrage since Laurence Olivier played Othello) but trying to propagandise actually historical events and research is not on.
The truth? Unless you have DNA or photographical evidence, it's just subjecture.
Let's concentrate of the issues of today, this obsession on race seems to me to be getting worse not better. But it seems to be people worried about racism making all the noise, when actual rasism is probably in decline ( in our native population anyway)
Not really. Anyone can win a war all you need is more or better resources than your opponent.
Let's concentrate of the issues of today, this obsession on race seems to me to be getting worse not better. But it seems to be people worried about racism making all the noise, when actual rasism is probably in decline ( in our native population anyway)
Yep non-integration is the real issue. I never saw the point in moving to a new country "for a better life" and then just carrying on with the old ways, with the old problems. Then passing it on to the next generation so the problems never go away.