Fair enough, good points. But Caesar's conquests were controversial even at the time; he was condemned as a war criminal by other Romans. Also, the kill numbers can always be inflated, so don't take those at face value.
Fair enough, good points. But Caesar's conquests were controversial even at the time; he was condemned as a war criminal by other Romans. Also, the kill numbers can always be inflated, so don't take those at face value.
True, though he was condemned for cynical political reasons, but even that doesn’t detract from your point because the simple fact they had the language of war criminal to use, suggests the difference might not be as clear cut as Holland suggests
I really enjoyed Dominion and thought it raised some really interesting points and is one of those rare books that really does make you look at things in a fresh light but I did think at times it was too definitive in its conclusions, saying something was ‘shown’ when it really it was just ‘suggested’, too often treating conclusions that were persuasive as being proven
Fair enough, good points. But Caesar's conquests were controversial even at the time; he was condemned as a war criminal by other Romans. Also, the kill numbers can always be inflated, so don't take those at face value.
True, though he was condemned for cynical political reasons, but even that doesn’t detract from your point because the simple fact they had the language of war criminal to use, suggests the difference might not be as clear cut as Holland suggests
I really enjoyed Dominion and thought it raised some really interesting points and is one of those rare books that really does make you look at things in a fresh light but I did think at times it was too definitive in its conclusions, saying something was ‘shown’ when it really it was just ‘suggested’, too often treating conclusions that were persuasive as being proven