I was thinking of the Roman legions integrating Germanic tribes into their ranks in the late Roman era which greatly diluted the Roman legions with a more ethically diverse group than in earlier periods. At one point there were more Roman soldiers that had never been to Rome or Italy than there were actual Romans.
To the Romans it was integrating barbarians. To the Germans it was Germanizing an occupying force.
At one point in history, the line between who changed who all depends on who is writing the narrative.
Okay, but I’m not sure I would castigate everyone non-Latin as being an outcast or criminal. If I didn’t know better I’d suspect this is Cato the Younger’s (or Elder’s) alt.
Early Australian settlers, on the other hand… (Love you guys, but that’s just facts. Make fun of our weather or something back)
That is literally a revisionist narrative spread by racists arguing for ethnic purity and making up an example to disallow immigration and enable segregationist policies.
And camels. If there’s a God, I guess he figured the weirdly human-hostile insects would keep people from disturbing it, and so didn’t plan for invasive species.
Yes, it’s a massive problem because they flourish in the outback and will decimate the vegetation. If you want to hunt camels that’s a great choice of destination. Just watch out for the molestation flies.
Australia is approximately the Roman empire?
Long roads forging through nowhere? Check.
Has a senate? Check.
People being killed by scary animals? Check.
Uncontested on it’s continent? Check.
On the edge of a giant desert? Check.
Seems about the same.
Emus would like a word…
One small village of indomitable
Gaulsemus still holds out against the invaders.Eventually overwhelmed and taken over by the barbarian hordes of thieves, social rejects and criminals they integrated into their society.
Mmm, I’m not sure that applies to Rome, haha.
I was thinking of the Roman legions integrating Germanic tribes into their ranks in the late Roman era which greatly diluted the Roman legions with a more ethically diverse group than in earlier periods. At one point there were more Roman soldiers that had never been to Rome or Italy than there were actual Romans.
To the Romans it was integrating barbarians. To the Germans it was Germanizing an occupying force.
At one point in history, the line between who changed who all depends on who is writing the narrative.
Okay, but I’m not sure I would castigate everyone non-Latin as being an outcast or criminal. If I didn’t know better I’d suspect this is Cato the Younger’s (or Elder’s) alt.
Early Australian settlers, on the other hand… (Love you guys, but that’s just facts. Make fun of our weather or something back)
That is literally a revisionist narrative spread by racists arguing for ethnic purity and making up an example to disallow immigration and enable segregationist policies.
https://beyondforeignness.org/5724
Not a perfect write up, but a pretty solid one.
And bunnies
And camels. If there’s a God, I guess he figured the weirdly human-hostile insects would keep people from disturbing it, and so didn’t plan for invasive species.
Really? Camels?
Yes, it’s a massive problem because they flourish in the outback and will decimate the vegetation. If you want to hunt camels that’s a great choice of destination. Just watch out for the molestation flies.
So what is the rule exactly? “Australia’s” and “Rome’s” both have an apostrophe, and that’s what “it” is standing in for here.
https://www.scribbr.com/nouns-and-pronouns/possessive-pronouns/
I don’t know, seems kind of goofy. For a word like “his”, there is no counterpart “hi”, but there is an “it”.
I’m assuming that “him” is related to the hypothetical counterpart “hi”