More Brilliance. This time on Trump and Greenland.

@Ferise1 Rome generally didnt expand - and more importantly survive - by invading its own allies to pinch their land. The Roman Empire, much like the British Empire, and until recently the American one, lasted because people at the very least tolerated them overall, because for all the potential oppression was also peace and stability (and roads and railways). And even more crucially, predictability. And more crucially yet, by not pissing off its friends.

The US can nick Greenland in a heartbeat but it will then be on its own and the tens of thousands of its soldiers in bases around the world - essential for any semblance of being a superpower, welcomed to have baes by its allies - will all suddenly be homeless (if not interned).

What's even dumber from president carrot is that they already have essentially unlimited military access to Greenland but have been closing bases Denmark will be more than happy for them to reopen if the US chose.

@Persephonee what allies did Rome have? They invaded places all around in every direction they definitely expanded.

@Ferise1 initially, all of italy that wasnt immediately around Rome! (and most importantly Numidia and Egypt, up to the end of the Republican period). And through the Empire they didnt just conquer stuff but absorbed it - because people generally wanted them.

What happened in Gaul under Caesar and Britain under Claudius was less the norm than you imagine. The socii (italian allies in the republican period) basically fought a war against rome, their ally - because Rome refused to let them have citizenship. (The "social war"). They lost militarily but also ultimately got Roman citizenship anyway.

People wanted to be Roman, even if they also grumbled about. And they certaily tolerated them on the whole. 40 years ago that also applied to the US.

Running an empire isnt about having the most hardware but the most friends.

@Persephonee complete nonsense. The expansion of Rome in the North created the middle ages and gigantic advancements in technology and society in general.

@Ferise1 do you mean the decline? Or do i not follow you?

And please have a glance at HH Scullard or someone at your leisure. This sort of argument was settled about 60 years ago

@Persephonee

@Persephonee you type a lot but you’re not saying anything. You have no vision.

@Ferise1 your vision is America having no friends in the world?

@Persephonee no

@Ferise1 no it shouldnt have.

@Ohplease47 it brought us the modern world

@Ferise1 too much brutality is not a good precedent for modern so called civil life The middle ages represented a thousand wasted years of trauma and reactionism and I say our legacy is hopelessly tainted with this breathlessssness..and the brutality it covered over very badly...and then continued itself.

@Ohplease47 it created the middle ages which brought us modern times

@Ohplease47 @Ferise1 The middle ages is very badly represented by history because of the renaissance (who, like people with ideas in any era, went out of their way to trash what was there before). They were not 'dark' (except for not having electric lights), lacking in science, lacking technological or social development, nor missing justice or compassion. Nor was there a lack of grand public projects, nor copious attempts to help the needy. They were also colourful, culturally sophisticated, and increasingly prosperous (ignore the Black Death, that's hardly anyone's fault).
Not saying life was always wonderful especially at the bottom and I definitely don't think we should bring back medieval dentistry nor destructive chevauchée raids into rivals' territory just to ruin stuff. But it wasn't a wasted era either.
Whatever else we might disagree on, I hope we can agree they weren't all bad.