Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: »Real Spamtopic
You have a strange definition of history and fake news.
Part of the official history might be alterated.
e.g. gauls: the official history states that they were barbarians, living in the woods, eating mostly what they hunted (like wild boars, see asterix). It is also said, that they were still making human sacrifices (time period of the republican rome).
Recent archeological fundings teach us otherwise: the gauls were mostly cultivators. There were less woods in gaul than now. They mostly ate cereals and meat of domesticated animals (pigs, beef). There are places in gaul, were there was a farm (including cultivated fields) every 700m. There were many fortified places troughout Gaul (called Oppida by Julius Caesar himself), with sometimes more than 10'000 inhabitants.
They were producing many goods (at some places salt, pottery), they had forges and they consumed wine.
Part of the false information we got from the romans and the greeks. The first one didn't like the gauls, because one tribe of the gauls (there was no united gaul people before Vercingetorix) once sacked the city Rome itself.
Here you have my source (it's obviously in french): Les Gaulois au dela du Mythe
Stop calling it fake news or alternated facts. Every official historical view might have been alterated, to make one side look better. That's what historians are here for. Check the historical facts, documents, artefacts (through archeological excavations), to find out if the official history is correct (without any ideology).
You can't do history with ideology. Where there's ideology, you'll make propaganda (mostly what you are doing, I'm afraid).
(edited)
Part of the official history might be alterated.
e.g. gauls: the official history states that they were barbarians, living in the woods, eating mostly what they hunted (like wild boars, see asterix). It is also said, that they were still making human sacrifices (time period of the republican rome).
Recent archeological fundings teach us otherwise: the gauls were mostly cultivators. There were less woods in gaul than now. They mostly ate cereals and meat of domesticated animals (pigs, beef). There are places in gaul, were there was a farm (including cultivated fields) every 700m. There were many fortified places troughout Gaul (called Oppida by Julius Caesar himself), with sometimes more than 10'000 inhabitants.
They were producing many goods (at some places salt, pottery), they had forges and they consumed wine.
Part of the false information we got from the romans and the greeks. The first one didn't like the gauls, because one tribe of the gauls (there was no united gaul people before Vercingetorix) once sacked the city Rome itself.
Here you have my source (it's obviously in french): Les Gaulois au dela du Mythe
Stop calling it fake news or alternated facts. Every official historical view might have been alterated, to make one side look better. That's what historians are here for. Check the historical facts, documents, artefacts (through archeological excavations), to find out if the official history is correct (without any ideology).
You can't do history with ideology. Where there's ideology, you'll make propaganda (mostly what you are doing, I'm afraid).
(edited)
wow, what a huge mistake, unfair historical fact..can you imagine the impact in your life today ?
Jericho was the first city, i believe, without searching..there evolution begun ?
They are still teaching the wrong story in french schools. So don't be insulting...
The past is as important as the future. You can learn from past mistakes, no matter how old they are. You can also learn from past successes, even though not as much.
About Jericho: how do you know? There might have been a lost civilisation, which didn't leave any clues.
The gauls didn't leave much trace, because they built their cities mostly with materials, who don't last that long (like wood).
The past is as important as the future. You can learn from past mistakes, no matter how old they are. You can also learn from past successes, even though not as much.
About Jericho: how do you know? There might have been a lost civilisation, which didn't leave any clues.
The gauls didn't leave much trace, because they built their cities mostly with materials, who don't last that long (like wood).
e.g. gauls: the official history states that they were barbarians, living in the woods, eating mostly what they hunted (like wild boars, see asterix). It is also said, that they were still making human sacrifices (time period of the republican rome).
nope, that was the report from roman military.
And they were almost right, if you think they were confronting gauls vs romans.
gallia omnia divisa est in partes tres (cit.)
nope, that was the report from roman military.
And they were almost right, if you think they were confronting gauls vs romans.
gallia omnia divisa est in partes tres (cit.)
the only thing that matter in your life about history should be the year
Roman military report? Where did you get that from?
The greek had the same opinion. It's most probably arrogance, seeing themselves as extremly civilised. Which is why they got conquered by the romans...
As for confrontations, here's the article from wikipedia about the sack of rome in 393 B.C.. Julius Caesar achieved the conquest of the gauls, because he used their divisions. Had Vercingetorix united the gauls earlier, the Romans would have been defeated without any doubt.
The three parts he was referring were the regions Aquitania, Gallia and Belgica. They were rough undergroups of gauls. Each having numerous tribes with alliances and inimities, even within their region. They weren't only three Gauls, unlike what Julius Caesar stated, more likely to get the senate's approval for the conquest of these territories.
United territories are easier to conquest than divided ones...
The greek had the same opinion. It's most probably arrogance, seeing themselves as extremly civilised. Which is why they got conquered by the romans...
As for confrontations, here's the article from wikipedia about the sack of rome in 393 B.C.. Julius Caesar achieved the conquest of the gauls, because he used their divisions. Had Vercingetorix united the gauls earlier, the Romans would have been defeated without any doubt.
The three parts he was referring were the regions Aquitania, Gallia and Belgica. They were rough undergroups of gauls. Each having numerous tribes with alliances and inimities, even within their region. They weren't only three Gauls, unlike what Julius Caesar stated, more likely to get the senate's approval for the conquest of these territories.
United territories are easier to conquest than divided ones...
the only thing that matter in your life about history should be the year
Does that mean you threw your bible away?
Does that mean you threw your bible away?
epic (rap) battle of history, religionist vs historian
FIGHT!!
trololololololo
FIGHT!!
trololololololo
no way
2017 after Christ..Who is that Christ ? and what he said ? that matters
(edited)
2017 after Christ..Who is that Christ ? and what he said ? that matters
(edited)
That's not what you said. You said what happened in the past doesn't matter, just the date. That's total rubbish, as it would mean, that the Christ's message isn't important, only the date, when he spoke it, is.
Do you have any idea how much nonsense you sometimes write?
Do you have any idea how much nonsense you sometimes write?
i have no idea
i have personal thoughts, based on my logic
you are happy with your ancestors, i tell you, they were nobody, like us..take Jesus as a leader, learn from him..history is dead, future is dead, live present with Jesus teachings
i have personal thoughts, based on my logic
you are happy with your ancestors, i tell you, they were nobody, like us..take Jesus as a leader, learn from him..history is dead, future is dead, live present with Jesus teachings
Roman military report? Where did you get that from?
all history is written by the winner. the winner was a roman general (caesar for example).
Julius Caesar achieved the conquest of the gauls, because he used their divisions. Had Vercingetorix united the gauls earlier, the Romans would have been defeated without any doubt.
that is very superficial. Romans got more population, more organization, more money, more weapons, better leadership. It was just matter of time.
..And, by the way, for the population of gauls, the roman empire has been a real fortune. just look how many cities and roads the empire did.. where there was nothing.. than compare it to the countries where roman empire didn't arrive..
all history is written by the winner. the winner was a roman general (caesar for example).
Julius Caesar achieved the conquest of the gauls, because he used their divisions. Had Vercingetorix united the gauls earlier, the Romans would have been defeated without any doubt.
that is very superficial. Romans got more population, more organization, more money, more weapons, better leadership. It was just matter of time.
..And, by the way, for the population of gauls, the roman empire has been a real fortune. just look how many cities and roads the empire did.. where there was nothing.. than compare it to the countries where roman empire didn't arrive..
yea, innit? :D
anyway, yesterday in Pula (yea, i know XD), my home town, oil rig "escaped" and sunk 25meter ship in nearby shipyard..
?!
yea, you read that right.. it was windy, few cables snapped and oil rig that was on the repair just drifted away and made a pinata out of sea help ship...
anyway, yesterday in Pula (yea, i know XD), my home town, oil rig "escaped" and sunk 25meter ship in nearby shipyard..
?!
yea, you read that right.. it was windy, few cables snapped and oil rig that was on the repair just drifted away and made a pinata out of sea help ship...
Pula is nice city, but I was on 5 days trip in Zadar in September when it was under watter and people were playing water polo on main square :D