Join 3,375 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Honor your enemy
April 15, 2012 12:09 PM   Subscribe

Who was the greatest foe the British Empire ever faced? George Washington, according to the UK's National Army Museum.
posted by Chocolate Pickle (59 comments total) 7 users marked this as a favorite

 
Really? I'd maintain that it was the chattering classes who demanded that the British invade Afghanistan in order to shield India from the imminent Russian invasion.
posted by anewnadir at 12:12 PM on April 15, 2012 [4 favorites]


Well, he was 12 stories high, made of radiation, or so I have heard, so I can understand how that would leave an impression.
posted by GenjiandProust at 12:15 PM on April 15, 2012 [42 favorites]


George Washington...FUCK YEAH!
posted by Windopaene at 12:19 PM on April 15, 2012 [3 favorites]


"Outstanding military opponent" has many possible meanings.
posted by Brian B. at 12:29 PM on April 15, 2012


Old Bonie came in third? It ain't right! Says so in the scriptures!
posted by jquinby at 12:29 PM on April 15, 2012 [1 favorite]


In second place was Michael Collins, the Irish leader,

And a set of steak knives. The six counties never achieved what the thirteen colonies did.
posted by three blind mice at 12:31 PM on April 15, 2012 [1 favorite]


To be less flippant, I think that Napoleon was a way worse foe because he actually was a credible threat to destroy the UK, which none of the others on the list were. I guess Washington was the one who inflicted the greatest loss on the Empire and kept it that way, but he was never going to invade the island....

And Atatürk didn't do much win at Gallipoli as gratefully accept the British willingness to do everything wrong, but I guess he stands out as a scar on the psyche.
posted by GenjiandProust at 12:32 PM on April 15, 2012 [5 favorites]


What, no Blas de Lezo? Perfidious Albion indeed...
posted by Skeptic at 12:33 PM on April 15, 2012 [1 favorite]


Any MeFite care to recommend a good bio on Washington?
posted by Edogy at 12:33 PM on April 15, 2012


Johnny Rotten.
posted by philip-random at 12:34 PM on April 15, 2012 [2 favorites]


Well, he was 12 stories high, made of radiation, or so I have heard, so I can understand how that would leave an impression.

On a horse made of crystal, he patrols the land.
Ate opponents brains, and invented cocaine.
6'20" fucking killing for fun.

posted by delmoi at 12:34 PM on April 15, 2012 [12 favorites]


It is probably important to note, however, that Napoleon did, you know, lose.

Twice.
posted by kyrademon at 12:40 PM on April 15, 2012 [5 favorites]


Remarkable not just for what he did militarily, but what he didn't do:
The principal concern of the Continental Army and its officers in late 1782 and early 1783, however, was not military badges, but back pay owed to them and pensions promised to them by Congress. Washington began receiving letters from confidential correspondents warning of “dangerous combinations” within the army who planned to march on Congress if their demands were not met. Some Congressional delegates, worried about a potential military coup d’ etat, suggested to Washington that he use his stature to threaten Congress in order to help the officers. Still others within the army urged Washington to assume dictatorial or monarchical powers to force Congress to fulfill their obligations to the troops. With the emergence of the Newburgh Conspiracy, Washington biographer James Thomas Flexner noted, “[t]he American Revolution…reached its moment of major political crisis.”

On March 10, 1783, the officers of the Continental Army in New Windsor posted the so-called Newburgh Address which raised the specter, in biographer Bruce Chadwick’s words,  “of a permanent, leaderless, and quite angry military,” refusing to disband at war’s end and potentially ready to march on Philadelphia. Washington sensed the urgency of the threat and requested a gathering of the officers at the Temple Hill meeting hall where they could discuss their grievances. Washington implied that he would not attend the meeting.

The officers assembled on benches in the hall on March 15, 1783. Flexner calls this “probably the most important single gathering ever held in the United States.” Washington arrived unexpectedly, walked across a small stage, and pulled from his coat a speech he had prepared at his headquarters. He commended their bravery, appealed to their patriotism, promised to persuade Congress to meet their just demands, and pleaded with them to refrain from opening “the flood gates of civil discord” and deluging “our rising empire in blood.” Do not take any action, he said, that “will lessen the dignity and sully the glory you have hitherto maintained.” His words, however, appeared to fall on deaf ears.

Then, in a dramatic moment, he reached in his coat for a reassuring letter from a congressman that he intended to read. He then took from his pocket his eyeglasses which only a few of his closest aides had ever seen him wear. The officers sat silently as Washington fumbled to place the eyeglasses on his face while holding the letter. Washington then remarked, “Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country.”

“This homely act and simple statement,” wrote Flexner, “did what all Washington’s arguments had failed to do.” Washington’s words, writes Bruce Chadwick, “touched the hearts of every man in the hall.” One officer who sat in the Temple Hall that day later wrote in his journal that, “There was something so natural, so unaffected, in his appeal that it rendered it superior to the most studied oratory; it forced its way to the heart.” The Newburgh Conspiracy ended at that moment. Thomas Jefferson later wrote “the moderation and virtue of a single character probably prevented this Revolution from being closed, as most others have been, by a subversion of that liberty it was intended to establish.”

[...]

When British King George III was told that after winning independence Washington planned to retire to Mount Vernon instead of seizing power as a dictator, he remarked, “If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.”
posted by Rhaomi at 12:42 PM on April 15, 2012 [87 favorites]


Were Christiaan de Wet and Koos de la Rey even on the list? Not endorsing their cause, but they certainly belong in any discussion of formidable opponents of the British.
posted by McCoy Pauley at 12:44 PM on April 15, 2012 [2 favorites]


I think they meant that Washington was a formidable adversary to go up against, not that he was an actual ultimate threat.
posted by Burhanistan at 12:46 PM on April 15, 2012


“If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.”

Well, Washington wasn't quite the Duke of Zhou, but I guess George III can be forgiven his ignorance of history.
posted by GenjiandProust at 12:47 PM on April 15, 2012 [1 favorite]


Well, Washington faced an occupation army that required several months to resupply, whereas Collins faced an enemy that had occupied the territory for centuries, and had bred and trained over generations a vast populace and army of native sympathisers and enforcers. Collins' innovation was to realise the impossibility of conventional victory during the 1916 Rebellion (in which a conventional small insurrectionary force supplied by Germany was comprehensively annihilated by a combination of native-born and foreign troops). His solution was "asymmetrical warfare" and a novel and relentless campaign of cultural imperialism, terrorism and occasional force ambushes that rendered the country ungovernable by Westminster and its native proxies. He basically innovated 20th Century anti-colonialial warfare.
posted by meehawl at 12:52 PM on April 15, 2012 [5 favorites]


Washington? Pish! Napoleon Bonaparte is the winner by a country mile. We have a history of disparaging him, all the way down to lying about his height. But bear in mind that the tyrant Pitt had to station something 15,000 soldiers in England to counter the "threat" posed by the French Revolution and the hope of freedom that it promised Europe.
posted by Jehan at 1:08 PM on April 15, 2012 [2 favorites]


Any MeFite care to recommend a good bio on Washington?

Flexner's Washington: The Indispensable Man
Chernow's Washington: A Life

Take your pick.

(Good one, jquinby.)
posted by IndigoJones at 1:38 PM on April 15, 2012 [7 favorites]


My favorite George Washington story is how he sorta accidentally helped start the Seven Years' War when his troops stumbled on a contingent of French soldiers in the Ohio Valley. The French leader died under... mysterious circumstances in the battle; the French claimed Washington had killed the French leader after they'd surrendered, while one of the British soldiers claimed one of their Indian allies had attacked and killed the French commander after the battle. In any case the French were pretty angry, and they chased Washington back to Fort Necessity, forced him to surrender, and made him sign a document claiming he had assassinated the French commander. After that inauspicious ending Washington went back to Virginia and became a part of Braddock's expedition, which resulted in an even more embarrassing and disastrous defeat.

So it helps me to remember sometimes that you can't expect to win 'em all, and even huge historical figures like Washington sometimes had terrible setbacks before they made it big. Because sheesh, I can't imagine having to explain to your buddies why you signed a surrender document admitting you'd assassinated someone and then watching your skirmish snowball into seven years of globe-spanning war. Not that there weren't lots of other reasons for the war that had made it basically inevitable by that point, but that must've been a cold comfort at night. It makes that completely idiotic comment I made in class seem far less embarrassing by comparison.
posted by lilac girl at 1:56 PM on April 15, 2012 [12 favorites]


I heard that motherfucker had, like, thirty fucking dicks. About thirty fucking times. From my American friends on President's Day. They'll do the same on the 4th of July. It's kind of a thing.
posted by tigrefacile at 2:28 PM on April 15, 2012 [1 favorite]


Apart from Blas de Lezo not making the NAM's original selection of 20 (hopefully on the grounds that he was a naval commander rather than a military one), I also find it sad that Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck didn't make the final five. As German foes of the British Empire go, he was infinitely more badass than Rommel.
posted by Skeptic at 2:39 PM on April 15, 2012 [1 favorite]


I forgot the link to the NAM's write up on von Lettow-Vorbeck.
posted by Skeptic at 2:41 PM on April 15, 2012


Hitler, Ghandi, William Wallace, Napoleon, the Romans, the French
posted by Jondo at 2:44 PM on April 15, 2012 [2 favorites]


I was *sure* it was going to be the Daleks.
posted by briank at 2:46 PM on April 15, 2012 [15 favorites]


Washington also consented to the simple title "Mr. President" rather than the absurd alternatives, such as "His Elective Majesty." Which I appreciate because if I'm going to dislike a president, I vastly prefer to call him "President So-and-so" rather than "His Elective Majesty, President So-and-so." (And whenever jerks write to, say, the NYTimes and complain that calling the president "Mr. Obama" on second reference is "disrespectful," I want to punch them in the face for failing at civics.)

Washington's wife had excellent taste in shoes! Among the generalized badassery of the founding mothers, Martha Washington's choice to winter with George for EIGHT WINTERS during the war for independence stands out to me. The army's starving to death at Valley Forge, fighting a vastly superior force, and one of the wealthiest and most fashionable women in Virginia spends with winter with the army and her husband -- because she loved the cause of freedom and she madly loved her husband. She was very good for morale -- if wealthy socialite Martha Washington was brave enough to winter with the army, what man could do less for his country-to-be?
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 2:48 PM on April 15, 2012 [6 favorites]


Huh, I was just reading about Napoleon's planned invasion of Britain yesterday, which acquainted me with an excellent quote from Admiral Jervis: "I do not say, my Lords, that the French will not come. I say only they will not come by sea."
posted by A dead Quaker at 2:48 PM on April 15, 2012 [4 favorites]


> Hitler, Ghandi, William Wallace, Napoleon, the Romans, the French

From the Article:
To qualify, each commander had to come from the 17th century onwards – the period covered by the museum's collection – and had to have led an army in the field against the British, thus excluding political enemies, like Adolf Hitler.
posted by Panjandrum at 2:58 PM on April 15, 2012


Michael Collins invented the modern model of terrorism. "The Big Fella" was a gangster, pure and simple. Everyone else on the list wore a uniform and adhered to something resembling rules of war. Collins was just a bomb-thrower.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 3:04 PM on April 15, 2012 [1 favorite]


Cool Papa Bell: Collins was just a bomb-thrower.

He did that, but he also as Minister of Finance arranged a bond sale for the Irish Free State's fledging pseudo-republic, he organized a rather conventional guerrilla war using a force of ~15,000 organised into small platoons throughout the rural areas and often facing off against UK artillery and search/destroy pogroms (utilising around 100K UK regulars and paramilitary forces), and he planned and executed the amphibious assaults by the Irish Treaty forces into the densely held core of the anti-Treaty territories that rather effectively ended the Irish civil War much sooner than anyone had expected.
posted by meehawl at 3:37 PM on April 15, 2012 [3 favorites]


Michael Collins invented the modern model of terrorism. "The Big Fella" was a gangster, pure and simple. Everyone else on the list wore a uniform and adhered to something resembling rules of war. Collins was just a bomb-thrower.
This doesn't really make sense to me.

I mean - look. I've tried to spot signs of planted IEDs from the turret of a moving humvee. I've been woken up by incoming small arms, rocket, and mortar fire. I wasn't infantry, but I do have some slight experience with what it's like to be an occupying Soldier in a country faced with an asymmetrical insurrection. Every single time the Talibs, or Haqani fighters, or whatever the hell group it was that day tried to engage American forces in a "rules of war" way they got slaughtered. Literally. Any Talib commander that wants to kill one American soldier in a firefight better be willing to lose at least 5 or 10 guys in trade, and that's if he can start and end the engagement before the artillery shells or the aircraft get there.

Finally, although we're comforted by the geneva conventions and what have you... the rules of war are just... they're absurdities.

It's a bunch of humans turning their hands to end of killing other humans in whatever manner they can. Wearing a uniform or not wearing a uniform doesn't change that. Being a "bomb thrower" doesn't seem a whole lot different to me from being the side that has access to 155mm artillery support and A-10s vs. the side that doesn't.

I was scared we'd get hit with an IED, sure. I was scared I'd be one of the unlucky ones that got blown up by a rocket or a mortar round landing on my little plywood sleeping hut. But I've seen an A-10 at work, from a vantage point 1-2km off. I honestly can not imagine anything more terrifying than being on the other end of that.

Sorry, not directly related to the OP! Was just reading the comments for interesting tidbits and then ran into that and was a little flabbergasted.
posted by kavasa at 3:45 PM on April 15, 2012 [31 favorites]


Panjandrums
Ok shot from hip, but Hitler and the Battle of Britain was a military force. Ghandi had an army of nonviolent followers
posted by Jondo at 3:48 PM on April 15, 2012 [1 favorite]


...narrowly beating Michael Collins, the gin cocktail. So uh...well done, I guess? (I submit that the greatest foe the Brits ever faced was the Rage virus, followed closely by Vikings.)
posted by tumid dahlia at 3:50 PM on April 15, 2012


George Washington is remembered as the Town Destroyer by th Iroquois.
posted by Jondo at 3:58 PM on April 15, 2012


Every single time the Talibs, or Haqani fighters, or whatever the hell group it was that day tried to engage American forces in a "rules of war" way they got slaughtered.

Know who else faced long odds like that, where military reaction would mean certain death?

Gandhi.

Washington's forces wore uniforms and lined up under the banner of an elected Congress that issued a formal Declaration of Independence, with the signers of the Declaration specifically pledging their lives and fortunes in black and white text.

That's one way to do it. Gandhi offers another, when formal, moral, ethical resistance is not possible.

Taliban? Moqtada al-Sadr? One cannot possibly draw a moral equivalence between these jackasses killing for fun and dipshit tribalism, and other examples of freedom fighters.

If someone wants to talk about a good Irish freedom fighter, come talk to me about Collins' later career where he worked for peace (and was killed by his own people for doing so). But let's not forget that before that, he was just another terrorist.

If after 9/11, had Bin Laden "went legit," would we talk about him in terms of "honoring" an enemy? No. Same for Collins.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 4:23 PM on April 15, 2012


Know who else faced long odds like that, where military reaction would mean certain death?

Gandhi had the great foresight to choose the British as his opponent. Had he chosen less wisely things would have ended quite differently. c.f. "The Last Article".
posted by Justinian at 4:28 PM on April 15, 2012 [3 favorites]


Gandhi had the great foresight to choose the British as his opponent.

No, it's the other way around. The British had the foresight to choose Gandhi as an opponent. Had they killed Gandhi and stomped out the INC their next opponent in India would have been heavily armed and at the head of an unstoppable rebellion.

It's nice to see Ataturk on this list. The Turkish War of Independence was the beginning of the end for European imperialism, and the parallel to Washington is pretty obvious.

At Gallipoli, Ataturk proved himself the most honest General of WWI. His speech to the Turkish 57th regiment: "I do not order you to fight, I order you to die. In the time which passes until we die, other troops and commanders can come forward and take our places." Quite true: the 57th suffered literally 100% casualties but kept the Australians bottled up on the beaches long enough for reinforcements to dig in.

Speaking of honoring your enemy, here's more Ataturk: "There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side here in this country of ours…You, the mothers, who sent their sons from faraway countries wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace, after having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well." Memorial at Gallipoli
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 4:44 PM on April 15, 2012 [7 favorites]


I'm not going to give someone a hard time for not being Gandhi.
posted by Bookhouse at 5:32 PM on April 15, 2012 [2 favorites]


That's one way to do it. Gandhi offers another, when formal, moral, ethical resistance is not possible.

Gandhi's approach only works against certain kinds of opponents, however.
posted by kenko at 5:44 PM on April 15, 2012 [2 favorites]


Washington's forces wore uniforms and lined up under the banner of an elected Congress that issued a formal Declaration of Independence, with the signers of the Declaration specifically pledging their lives and fortunes in black and white text.


Pearse would have a word on that. Several, really.
We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible. The long usurpation of that right by a foreign people and government has not extinguished the right, nor can it ever be extinguished except by the destruction of the Irish people. In every generation the Irish people have asserted their right to national freedom and sovereignty: six times during the past three hundred years[2] they have asserted it in arms. Standing on that fundamental right and again asserting it in arms in the face of the world, we hereby proclaim the Irish Republic as a Sovereign Independent State, and we pledge our lives and the lives of our comrades-in-arms to the cause of its freedom, of its welfare, and its exaltation among the nations.
Terrorism remains merely terrorism simply when it lacks sufficient political support and military power. All terrorists aspire to be soldiers, because they believe themselves to be waging a war. Collins used terrorism. But he won, so he's on the list.
posted by Diablevert at 6:50 PM on April 15, 2012 [3 favorites]


Shortly after the peace was signed, the story began, the Revolutionary War hero Ethan Allen "had occasion to visit England" where he was subjected to considerable teasing banter. The British would make"fun of the Americans and General Washington in particular and one day they got a picture of General Washington" and displayed it prominently in the outhouse so Mr. Allen could not miss it. When he made no mention of it, they finally asked him if he had seen the Washington picture. Mr. Allen said, "he thought that it was a very appropriate [place] for an Englishman to Keep it. Why they asked, for said Mr. Allen there is Nothing that Will Make an Englishman Shit So quick as the sight of Genl Washington."
-- One of Abraham Lincoln's favorite stories, from Team of Rivals
posted by kirkaracha at 7:06 PM on April 15, 2012 [27 favorites]


Comforting to know that the British can be as ignorant about the revolution.

I mean, greatest threat to the British Empire? When he had every intention for America to immediately resume being an important source of materiel for the British Navy the moment the war ended? And carried out on that intention?
posted by ocschwar at 7:06 PM on April 15, 2012


Oh, I see. Worthiest foe, not greatest threat. Never mind.
posted by ocschwar at 7:08 PM on April 15, 2012


I totally agree on Washington. Granted, I'm American and a history teacher, and therefore arguably (horribly) biased, but still... Washington not only won the war, he held together an independent-minded army amid a constant string of defeats and poor material support from its own government.

Dude was stiff, pompous, overly-formal, hung up on his neighbor's wife... and fucking awesome.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 7:58 PM on April 15, 2012 [1 favorite]


His greatest victories were against other countries,

Well, yes, that's the point I suppose
posted by mattoxic at 12:36 AM on April 16, 2012


The answer is alcohol but you can't expect an army museum to say that.
posted by srboisvert at 1:52 AM on April 16, 2012 [2 favorites]


Gore Vidal on George Washington
posted by ennui.bz at 4:55 AM on April 16, 2012 [2 favorites]


The answer is alcohol but you can't expect an army museum to say that.

You don't say:

When Cecil landed his forces, they realised that they had no food or drink with them. Cecil then made the foolish decision to allow the men to drink from the wine vats found in the local houses. A wave of drunkenness ensued, with few or none of Cecil's force remaining sober. Realizing what he had done, Cecil took the only course left open to him, and ordered that the men return to their ships and retreat. When the Spanish army arrived, they found over 1,000 English soldiers still drunk: although every man was armed, not a single shot was fired as the Spanish put them all to the sword.
posted by Skeptic at 6:47 AM on April 16, 2012 [1 favorite]


Washington's forces wore uniforms and lined up under the banner of an elected Congress that issued a formal Declaration of Independence, with the signers of the Declaration specifically pledging their lives and fortunes in black and white text.

"An early example during the American Revolution was when British General John Burgoyne referred to the American Patriots using this type of warfare during the Saratoga campaign. He noted that, in proceeding through dense woodland:
The enemy is infinitely inferior to the King’s Troop in open space, and hardy combat, is well fitted by disposition and practice, for the stratagems of enterprises of Little War...upon the same principle must be a constant rule, in or near woods to place advanced sentries, where they may have a tree or some other defense to prevent their being taken off by a single marksman.
So conscious of hidden marksmen was Burgoyne that he asked his men, ‘When the Lieutenant General visits an outpost, the men are not to stand to their Arms or pay him any compliment,‘ clearly aware he would be singled out.[5]"

posted by klangklangston at 10:22 AM on April 16, 2012 [1 favorite]


Um, are we forgetting the two men who actually conquered the island?

Julius Caesar
William The Conqueror

Your move, Mr. President.
posted by snottydick at 10:37 AM on April 16, 2012


I've never understood why Washington's failed attack on Quebec City hasn't impacted his reputation much. It was a total misread of the terrain, climate, loyalties of the inhabitants.
posted by Intrepid at 10:43 AM on April 16, 2012



Um, are we forgetting the two men who actually conquered the island?

Julius Caesar
William The Conqueror


from the article, and this thread:

To qualify, each commander had to come from the 17th century onwards – the period covered by the museum's collection – and had to have led an army in the field against the British, thus excluding political enemies, like Adolf Hitler.
posted by oneirodynia at 10:55 AM on April 16, 2012


from the article, and this thread:

To qualify, each commander had to come from the 17th century onwards – the period covered by the museum's collection – and had to have led an army in the field against the British, thus excluding political enemies, like Adolf Hitler.
posted by oneirodynia at 10:55 AM on April 16 [+] [!]


Ah, well. Shame on me for not reading thoroughly.

That's a much less interesting question since it eliminates all but one of the actual existential threats that any entity called "Britain" has ever faced (Napoleon), and completely ignores the realities of modern warfare in which individual field commanders are far less important in terms of the overall war effort than their political masters.

Also, George Washington was not a particularly impressive military figure if you study his career in detail. Whatever genius he possessed was his political leadership skills. He held the army together just long enough for the sharks of Europe to smell the blood in the water.

Credit for the final military success is really owed to the fact that the British were obliged to cut their losses in the face of an all-out assault on the rest of their colonial possessions in the Caribbean, India, and the Pacific by the Franco-Spanish-Dutch alliance, which, by the way, was also in the process of assembling an armada to invade Britain itself.

King George III even told his Prime Minister that it was "a joke, to think of keeping Pennsylvania" when facing what he considered to be a "real" war in Europe.
posted by snottydick at 11:43 AM on April 16, 2012 [1 favorite]


(...also, it wasn't Julius Caesar who conquered Britain. It was the Emperor Claudius.)
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 3:59 PM on April 16, 2012 [2 favorites]


(...also, it wasn't Julius Caesar who conquered Britain. It was the Emperor Claudius.)

Poor Claudius never got any respect during his life and even Metafilter overlooks him.
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:22 PM on April 16, 2012 [1 favorite]


Nonsense. Claudius is held in the highest regard here on MetaFilter.
posted by Edogy at 6:55 PM on April 16, 2012 [3 favorites]


Claudius is held in the highest regard here on MetaFilter.

Indeed. I Claudius features Patrick Stewart's curly hair.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 12:10 AM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


Indeed. I Claudius features Patrick Stewart's curly hair.

Yes! I was recently listening to the History of Rome podcasts about those years, and the whole time I was imagining Patrick Stewart's hair!

Nonsense. Claudius is held in the highest regard here on MetaFilter.

Then why are people giving his triumph to Caesar, huh?
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:35 AM on April 17, 2012


it wasn't Julius Caesar who conquered Britain. It was the Emperor Claudius.

Cassivellaunus might disagree.

Caesar defeated the British tribes, forced them to pay tribute, took hostages, and established client kingdoms. He just decided not to maintain an occupation. I guess he felt that France and Italy had better food and beaches.

Claudius conquered it again and decided to keep it, but he was reacting to what was partly a revolt against a Roman hegemony already established by Caesar.
posted by snottydick at 11:02 AM on April 17, 2012


« Older Ray Bradbury, apparently a self-proclaimed "Disney...  |  No One Called Me a Slut... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments