yes but then the UK is 1700 ish which makes it about the same age as the USA.Presumably he was referring to the modern Italian state, not the Roman Empire
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
yes but then the UK is 1700 ish which makes it about the same age as the USA.Presumably he was referring to the modern Italian state, not the Roman Empire
1708, so about 70 years earlier. But it was hardly a new country. All of Englands laws and customs carried on and the scottish parliament just got seats in westminsteryes but then the UK is 1700 ish which makes it about the same age as the USA.
did rome ever stop being a capital?1708, so about 70 years earlier. But it was hardly a new country. All of Englands laws and customs carried on and the scottish parliament just got seats in westminster
Yeah. It wasn't even the roman empires capital for a long period of time.did rome ever stop being a capital?
because you seem to be saying italy is a new state, but basically although the bouncing from milan to rome for the western roman empire and the formation of the eastern roman empire may imply change . for christs sake especially st.petersYeah. It wasn't even the roman empires capital for a long period of time.
I don't know what relevance this is to my post however.
I was only commenting on your post about Britain and America.because you seem to be saying italy is a new state, but basically although the bouncing from milan to rome for the western roman empire and the formation of the eastern roman empire may imply change . for christs sake especially st.peters
shows you are talking shiteOld St. Peter's Basilica - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
"I suggest you look up the formation of Italy and Germany. 2 nations that are incredibly young and yet don't contain significant seperatist movements within them despite suffering through hardships at times. "I was only commenting on your post about Britain and America.
I never said anything about Italy other than answering what you asked specifically about Rome.
How am I talking shite?
You haven't jumped to a conclusion with absolutely no evidence to back it up again have you? You idiot
Oh right, is that what you were talking about."I suggest you look up the formation of Italy and Germany. 2 nations that are incredibly young and yet don't contain significant seperatist movements within them despite suffering through hardships at times. "
well before i mentioned rome
Although this seems to be veering off topic he is, I'm afraid, not talking shite. The currently existing nation state of Italy dates from 1861 following the wars of reunification. Obviously people still lived there before this and obviously many structures survived from Rome and before but the current political state of Italy (as opposed to a geographic description) only dates from the 1860s. Prior to that it was divided among many small states or foreign powers. There is no continuity (other than geographic and possibly cultural) between Imperial Rome and the modern state of Italy.because you seem to be saying italy is a new state, but basically although the bouncing from milan to rome for the western roman empire and the formation of the eastern roman empire may imply change . for christs sake especially st.peters
shows you are talking shiteOld St. Peter's Basilica - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
well talking about italy as if it hasn't been the dominant culture force in the western world since well something BC. An argument can be made that the UK and the USA later supplanted it but calling it young? Oh and pretending Italy - capital Rome isn't roman.Oh right, is that what you were talking about.
Ok... so what about that is talking shite?
and what continuity does me a native of daneland have with the UK. I mean come on its called the eternal city for a reasonAlthough this seems to be veering off topic he is, I'm afraid, not talking shite. The currently existing nation state of Italy dates from 1861 following the wars of reunification. Obviously people still lived there before this and obviously many structures survived from Rome and before but the current political state of Italy (as opposed to a geographic description) only dates from the 1860s. Prior to that it was divided among many small states or foreign powers. There is no continuity (other than geographic and possily cultural) between Imperial Rome and the modern state of Italy.
I didn't say Italy hasn't been a dominant cultural force in the western world, I said it's a young nation.well talking about italy as if it hasn't been the dominant culture force in the western world since well something BC. An argument can be made that the UK and the USA later supplanted it but calling it young? Oh and pretending Italy - capital Rome isn't roman.
and what continuity does me a native of daneland have with the UK. I mean come on its called the eternal city for a reason
can anybody please explain this to me . How can a culture be the dominant cultural force in the world since before the birth of christ but be a young nation? last time i checked there had been a pope for a while. I'm fairly sure the colosseum predates the stadium of light , even the portuguese one, i checked.I didn't say Italy hasn't been a dominant cultural force in the western world, I said it's a young nation.
I didn't pretend that Rome isn't roman either, I said it wasn't the capital of the roman empire for long periods of time
So once again it is you talking shite, not me. Glad you've kept things consistent though.
The ramblings of a mad man.last time i checked there had been a pope for a while. I'm fairly sure the colosseum predates the stadium of light , even the portuguese one, i checked.
You know a culture and a nation are two different things right?can anybody please explain this to me . How can a culture be the dominant cultural force in the world since before the birth of christ but be a young nation? last time i checked there had been a pope for a while. I'm fairly sure the colosseum predates the stadium of light , even the portuguese one, i checked.
well talking about italy as if it hasn't been the dominant culture force in the western world since well something BC. An argument can be made that the UK and the USA later supplanted it but calling it young? Oh and pretending Italy - capital Rome isn't roman.
and what continuity does me a native of daneland have with the UK. I mean come on its called the eternal city for a reason
Because a culture isn't a nation state. Roman culture has dominated the Western world for two thousand years but for the vast majority of that time the western Roman state (i.e. in Italy) was dead. Patently the modern state of Italy isn't Roman - there have been centuries of waves of invasions and successor states since then. The Papacy has been in existence in the city of Rome since Imperial times and if you're talking about the Catholic Church's continuity from the classical era that's a whole different argument. It's like saying that because Stonehenge is in England we can date the creation of the English state back to 3000BC...can anybody please explain this to me . How can a culture be the dominant cultural force in the world since before the birth of christ but be a young nation? last time i checked there had been a pope for a while. I'm fairly sure the colosseum predates the stadium of light , even the portuguese one, i checked.
can anybody please explain this to me . How can a culture be the dominant cultural force in the world since before the birth of christ but be a young nation? last time i checked there had been a pope for a while. I'm fairly sure the colosseum predates the stadium of light , even the portuguese one, i checked.
To be fair, the post in question was specifically about the philosophy of the nation statePresumably he is drawing a line between the culture of the peoples of the Italian peninsula, and the actual modern day nation state of Italy.
so can the same be said for england and moreover the uk because of the war of the roses , the civil war , the numerous scottish v english wars. Ricky the third v the tudors , william of orange.Because a culture isn't a nation state. Roman culture has dominated the Western world for two thousand years but for the vast majority of that time the western Roman state (i.e. in Italy) was dead. Patently the modern state of Italy isn't Roman - there have been centuries of waves of invasions and successor states since then. The Papacy has been in existence in the city of Rome since Imperial times and if you're talking about the Catholic Church's continuity from the classical era that's a whole different argument. It's like saying that because Stonehenge is in England we can date the creation of the English state back to 3000BC...
Yeah but when dealing with bulmers, particularly late at night, early in the morning or any other time of night or day for that matter.... you have to be wary that he will just bring up random shit to throw into the mix.To be fair, the post in question was specifically about the philosophy of the nation state
last time i checked there had been a pope for a while. I'm fairly sure the colosseum predates the stadium of light , even the portuguese one, i checked.
No, look I'm sorry but it can't. These are all English (or British & Irish) civil wars except for the wars against Scotland (which was a foreign state). They were wars internal to a state which existed as defined and continuous political entity and had done since well before 1066. At no time did the English state collapse and divide into successor states, nor did foreign invasions seize great swathes of the country. I'm giving up on this one because it's becoming increasingly evident you haven't got the slightest idea what you're talking aboutso can the same be said for england and moreover the uk because of the war of the roses , the civil war , the numerous scottish v english wars. Ricky the third v the tudors , william of orange.