3 ms·
Yes, you are wrong. It's clear you haven't even read the article. The article is an overview of (semi-)recent* archeological research into Roman frontier fortif
by sd_dev 7y ago
Yes, you are wrong. It's clear you haven't even read the article. The article is an overview of (semi-)recent* archeological research into Roman frontier fortifications. The general conclusion that it draws was that the Romans focused too much on fortifying their frontiers, which provided them with a sense of complacency. Once the frontiers were breached, it was already over. Sorta like the Maginot line. It also suggests that fortification-building towards the end of the empire was a symptom of the decline itself, not a cause (or cure).
All the off-topic comments here about politics are by people who didn't read the article.
*It's from 2012.
- thatoneuser 7y agoYou can reference something from 2012 and still make scathing partisan points. Just because the source wasn't aiming to match current politics doesn't mean the post isn't. Additionally the title flat out says the wall was "the beginning". Then in your comment you say the wall building fascination was a symptom, meaning it clearly wasn't the beginning - something else was. If this post wasn't meant to be political then some tact should have been considered to not draw obvious political parallels.