The Steampunk Forum at Brass Goggles
November 16, 2018, 04:53:39 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Support BrassGoggles! Donate once or $3/mo.
 See details here.
 
   Home   Blog Help Rules Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What The 19th Century Would Be Like If Rome Never Existed ?  (Read 1785 times)
chicar
Rogue Ætherlord
*
Canada Canada


Student in Techno-Shamanism and Lyncanthrope

Chicar556
WWW
« on: December 30, 2014, 04:49:45 pm »

There this little daydreamed piece of alternate history i think it might be fun to reality check: What if the Roman Empire never existed ? Or more precisely, how this world equivalent of the 19th century would be like ? Can we can make something steamy out of it ?

Here my hypothesis:

In the beggining: The world may not beneficate of Roman legacy, but surely of a still dying but in sursis Hellenic Empire. Also, no christianism, at least no like we know it. Roman domination of Israel was a factor in the belief of the coming of a messiah than i don't know what could remplace in this timeline. No islam as well

Then came two scenarios:

Carthage don't invade Europe in spite of Roman provocation: Many of the Great Power of the world are africans, middle oriental and asians. Europe had his dark age earlier. Eventually a event (possibly the barbarian invasions) among the non-european power provoke a mass exil in europe provoking a earlier rennaissance as well, the same way constantinople's invasion provoked otl renaissance. By the 19th century, this world have a few century in advance on our own with a geopolitic constituated of a non-latin mostly tribal Europe slightly dominated by a more organised Africa, Middle Orient and Asia. As for the Americas, the main colonial power would be the Norses in Groenland and Vinland (Canada) , the Britons and Hibernians in north-east otl USA regions, The Chinese in north-west otl USA regions and The Carthaginians in otl USa South with The Mesoamerican empire still alive and in charge in Central and South america.

Carthage invade Europe for the sake of it: Geopolitical history go the same way than in our own but instead to be based on Latin culture, Europe is based on the ones of North Africa. Steampunk happen for the same reason it would happen in a latin based world.

Any correction to brought ?
 
Logged

The word pagan came from paganus , who mean peasant . Its was a way to significate than christianism was the religion of the elite and paganism the one of the savage worker class.

''Trickster shows us how we trick OURSELVES. Her rampant curiosity backfires, but, then, something NEW is discovered (though usually not what She expected)! This is where creativity comes from—experiment, do something different, maybe even something forbidden, and voila! A breakthrough occurs! Ha! Ha! We are released! The world is created anew! Do something backwards, break your own traditions, the barrier breaks; destroy the world as you know it, let the new in.''
Extract of the Dreamflesh article ''Path of The Sacred Clown''
jonb
Snr. Officer
****
England England



« Reply #1 on: December 30, 2014, 06:24:31 pm »

Well,
If the Romans had not existed
they could not have killed Archimedes of Syracuse or the Academy so calculus would have developed 1500 years earlier. No Romans, the Celts would have flourished with concepts of equal rights for women, and responsibility for the weak. The Romans never invented anything. This might seem an odd statement when you can type Roman inventions into google and find so much stuff, but the truth is the Romans had no system to develop new ideas, so all that they had was invented by other societies which Rome conquered and the Romans just took it and even then failed to develop the technology or science.
If anything was a dark age the Roman Empire was it. If it was not for Rome we could be a thousand years ahead of where we are now.   
Logged
Hurricane Annie
Zeppelin Captain
*****
New Zealand New Zealand



« Reply #2 on: December 30, 2014, 06:48:30 pm »

 The greater portion of Romans were not Roman. The legions and leaders were a ethnically diverse bunch.

Would we perhaps have seen a stronger North African led surge across Europe and Eurasia, maybe reaching as far as Melanesia and Polynesia.

 Would the Middle Ages have involved a pole to pole global reach? Aviation and other long haul travel would have developed and evolved sooner. The Plague would have taken a different form.

The Judeo Christian belief system  would have taken a different slant.  The Romans suppressed the rise of a number of more significant  Messiah cults. Jesus was a small fry who slipped through the net.

Would there be a predominance of  camels and elephants in the warmer climes of Russia, Europe , the Americas and Antipodes  ?

Would lower income communities be more nomadic or transient?
Logged
Rory B Esq BSc
Snr. Officer
****
United Kingdom United Kingdom


« Reply #3 on: December 31, 2014, 04:47:44 pm »

If Rome never existed?
Britain would never have been ruled by a black man.
People who dig up pots of Roman coins would not make as much money.
MGM / Hollywood would have made fewer films with chariot races.
We wouldn't agree what year it is (OK it's 5,000 and something by the Jewish calendar but 900 odd by the Islamic one and the Mayan one ran out over a year ago).
Logged
W. S. Marble
Snr. Officer
****
United States United States

Gravatar


WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 31, 2014, 05:06:30 pm »

The newly founded United States of America would have lost its very first war, "on the shores of Carthage."
Logged
Jedediah Solomon
Snr. Officer
****
Canada Canada


If all else fails, get a larger hammer


WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 31, 2014, 05:36:06 pm »

the young hippies would have had no Roman Sandals, thus would have foregone unprotected sexual encounters at Woodstock, in favour of finding someone to massage their sore feet, and there would not be a population problem
imho
Logged

Adventure awaits
Rory B Esq BSc
Snr. Officer
****
United Kingdom United Kingdom


« Reply #6 on: December 31, 2014, 06:07:49 pm »

Children at public schools in Britain wouldn't have had to learn Latin, The 'Grand Tour' would have been a weekend break on euro-rail, Britain wouldn't have 'miles' pounds or even the name 'Britain'.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail wouldn't be as funny.

But on a more serious note would the absence of the Roman empire have had a negative or positive effect on history?

An over reliance on 'classical sources' held back science, along with some Rome based religious doctrines. On the other hand the idea of a return to a unified state in Italy played a part in the revolutionary movements of the 1840's that put the 'punk' into steampunk. So the prior existence of 'Rome' gave impetus to radical social movements across Europe such as universal suffrage (and beyond eg slave emancipation in USA).

Logged
jonb
Snr. Officer
****
England England



« Reply #7 on: December 31, 2014, 07:10:58 pm »



Answers in no particular order
Universal suffrage Boadicea.
The mile we use is not the same distance as the Roman mile.
Name Britain first mentioned by  the Greek Pytheas of Massalia in the 4th century BCE.
Grand tour would visit Greece, Dacia, a society based on Philosophy rather than Religion See Trajan's column. Etruscan Italy etc.
Chariots Boadicea, Egyptians, Chinese, almost everybody from the old world actually.
Human rights, See Celtic law
Arthurian legend could well be based on the life of Atilla,

Sandals not Roman in origin.

Celtic calender was more accurate than Roman. When was jesus born anyway?

Celts threw offerings into rivers, Saxon England Buried hoards, good times for metal detectors.
Druids as impartial negotiators, outside of individual states might put a stop to many unnecessary wars.
Logged
J. Wilhelm
╬ Admiral und Luftschiffengel ╬
Moderator
Immortal
*
United States United States


Sentisne fortunatum punkus? Veni. Diem meum comple


WWW
« Reply #8 on: January 01, 2015, 07:28:22 am »

I don't know.  I don't like to speculate that far back.  To begin with all eras being equal, the simplest outcome is the most likely  Grin  I think that if the Romans had not emerged, someone would have taken their place - but I can't assure you that it would be the Celts.  The Cemlts were not as monolithic as people would have them be.  And without the Romans other Middle Eastern existing powers could simply slip in and do the same.  Would we be more advanced?  It depemds on who took over.  It seems we have a knack for destruction.  No library or erudite is safe from the contemporary "chavs."  Grin
Logged

jonb
Snr. Officer
****
England England



« Reply #9 on: January 01, 2015, 04:00:07 pm »

I would like to take you on a little journey into my way of looking at this.
It is in the nature of those that seek power to presume more power gives more control. The presumption being to get the best outcome one should exert the greatest control. The more powerful the Empire the better because the single best solution can be imposed. However I think exactly the opposite is true. When I look at any problem the more different approaches to that problem I can think of the more choices I have to choose the best path.
Could it be that European domination of say the sciences was not because of the European empires, but actually because no one empire was able to dominate Europe, so any new thinker was able to cross the boarder if he upset the man in power. Think about China two and a half thousand years ago they were easily the most advanced society on earth. Then they got an emperor who set up a system of education, and centrally run civil service which was not entered by right of birth but you actually had to pass an examination to enter. China had a central authority with more power at its head than virtually any other power has ever had and as a power was able to dominate its area like no other power has ever been able to exert. So what was the outcome of this advance? Simply China stopped developing, When Europeans started bullying it in the nineteenth century it was in almost every detail the same state as it had been two thousand years earlier.
Now I know there will be people who object to the above saying China developed porcelain, and gunpowder, after it became a centralised state so it had not stopped developing, but firstly it was Arab settlers on the coast of china that developed its pottery. Then you will find that the mixture of eternal life which poisoned and killed the first Emperor was a form of gun powder, and it took the Chinese who had this substance over a thousand years to notice what it did and think what could be done with it once they had an oppressive central government.

WE tend to think of the Romans representing an advance, but in truth was not Rome no more than an anomaly that got in the way, a hiccup in history, not an inevitable thing but just an inconvenience.
Romans took over Greece and the academies stopped developing, the only academy that was still doing work was in Egypt, where the Romans had to keep the Greek population on their side to retain control. Similarly the Druids had been removed so the diversified Celtic Europe lost its codes of laws and practices.
But
As soon as the Romans left Britain, the British started producing art not in a Roman style but returned to Celtic forms. And what is often referred to as the dark ages is more properly a time of recovery where trade roots are discovered, agriculture in Europe advances, and they
learnt to an extent to enrich the soil the Romans had literally destroyed with and unsustainable agricultural system. though parts of North Africa and part of Britain never fully recovered agriculturally. And new institutions arise to replace what Rome had destroyed.

In many ways I am a chav, I am of the urban poor, I see how the cost of education is being increased to exclude the great unwashed, I see how even with the right knowledge, people are excluded if their faces don't fit. So outsiders turn from thinking to religious doctrine for answers. I see a centralised state wanting ever more power to control for itself to monitor individuals. I see in science which invariably develops with the thoughts of individuals approaching things in a different way, one person in a shed, is now being forced to be part of central control with a single approach.
To me what is wrong is that globalisation looks like a return to Rome with it doctrine of central power and making all parts of the Empire the same.
Put it this way I love steampunk, because of the inherent assertion that comes with it, to assert individuality, to dress differently, to create individual aesthetics, to craft and create in sheds, to make new things from what others see as waste, and most of all think about things from different points of view, and from different perspectives. To take from the past and make the future.       
Logged
Hurricane Annie
Zeppelin Captain
*****
New Zealand New Zealand



« Reply #10 on: January 01, 2015, 07:10:45 pm »



In many ways I am a chav, I am of the urban poor, I see how the cost of education is being increased to exclude the great unwashed, I see how even with the right knowledge, people are excluded if their faces don't fit. So outsiders turn from thinking to religious doctrine for answers. I see a centralised state wanting ever more power to control for itself to monitor individuals. I see in science which invariably develops with the thoughts of individuals approaching things in a different way, one person in a shed, is now being forced to be part of central control with a single approach.
To me what is wrong is that globalisation looks like a return to Rome with it doctrine of central power and making all parts of the Empire the same.
Put it this way I love steampunk, because of the inherent assertion that comes with it, to assert individuality, to dress differently, to create individual aesthetics, to craft and create in sheds, to make new things from what others see as waste, and most of all think about things from different points of view, and from different perspectives. To take from the past and make the future.       

Steampunk with its reassuring familiarity of the old , it's creative expression of the new , it's sense of potential self sustainable life style is a beacon of light and liberation in an increasing authoritarian and bleak world.

 It offers the individual an escapist option.
Logged
jonb
Snr. Officer
****
England England



« Reply #11 on: January 01, 2015, 07:26:20 pm »

Dear Ms Hurricane I would not only agree with you, but would go further it is the willingness to play with what others might dismiss as mere escapism or wasting time that often shows the light to move forward into.
Logged
Hurricane Annie
Zeppelin Captain
*****
New Zealand New Zealand



« Reply #12 on: January 01, 2015, 08:18:45 pm »

Dear Ms Hurricane I would not only agree with you, but would go further it is the willingness to play with what others might dismiss as mere escapism or wasting time that often shows the light to move forward into.

 Where would the world  be  with out Life's  tinkerers , dreamers  and boundary pushers
Logged
W. S. Marble
Snr. Officer
****
United States United States

Gravatar


WWW
« Reply #13 on: January 02, 2015, 04:34:05 pm »

Where would the world  be  with out Life's  tinkerers , dreamers  and boundary pushers

And so another great empire begins....here.
Logged
pakled
Zeppelin Captain
*****
United States United States


Minions Local 305, at your thervice!


« Reply #14 on: January 02, 2015, 05:58:23 pm »

Roma Delenda Est?

Well, dont' forget the Greeks (Romans were captivated by them, I can't remember the exact phrase, something like 'captive Greece her Captor Captive made' Strangely, I couldn't find it in Wiki...Wink. The countries created by Alexander were more or less intact, though muchly rearranged. Wonder who Cleo would have to seduce this time?...Wink

The Etruscans might still be around, one way or another. Greece had several colonies in Italy, so they might forge something on their own. There'd be a major lack of roads around Europe, at least the Roman Style. Gaul would still be in 3 parts...Wink And there'd be a bodacious time in Britain.

Druids might be at it even today. The major question would be...with no fall of a non-existent Roman empire, would there be any Rennaisance? Life might still be 'nasty, brutish, and short.'

 

Logged
Vagabond GentleMan
Zeppelin Captain
*****
United States United States


Clockwork Sepia


WWW
« Reply #15 on: January 02, 2015, 09:23:51 pm »

This question is an infinitely perplexing daydream that in truth would probably need both expert historians and master speculative fiction writers working in collaboration to even begin to build a believable model.

Empires are both wonderful and horrible.  I mostly feel they're horrible, but I can't deny what magic they bring about, mostly through inter-cultural sharing, even if forced.  The politics, religion, language, and technology of the Roman empire have colored the landscape of the Western world in fundamental ways.

No Rome means no Senates as we know them, no Republics as we know them, etc.  Political systems and set-ups that still dramatically color our world.
No Rome means no Latin.  Therefore no Spanish, no French, no Portuguese, no Italian, no English as we know it, English being something like 65% Latin-influenced (or at least that's what my Latin professors claimed).  No ancient "Universal" language, and therefore no ancient universal written language.

No Rome means no Roman-influenced warfare.  No Viking shield-walls, no professional armies as we know them, no siege engines as we know them, etc.

No Rome means no Jesus, no Constantine, no Mohammed.

No aqueducts, no Roman architecture, no lead pipes, no Roman bath-houses...

Unless all of these things were developed by some other culture...and that's again, more daydreaming than anything else.

I feel silly even discussing it, for my knowledge of the VAST influence of Rome over the course of history is bleakly inadequate even though more extensive than the average bear's.
Logged

Well that wolf has a dimber bonebox, and he'll flash it all milky and red.  But you won't see our Red Jack's spit, nug, cuz he's pinked ya, and yer dead.
Atterton
Time Traveler
****

Only The Shadow knows


« Reply #16 on: January 02, 2015, 09:38:00 pm »

There would be no caesar salad!
Logged

Resurrectionist and freelance surgeon.
Hurricane Annie
Zeppelin Captain
*****
New Zealand New Zealand



« Reply #17 on: January 02, 2015, 09:45:29 pm »

There would be no caesar salad!

 Or roman blinds
Logged
jonb
Snr. Officer
****
England England



« Reply #18 on: January 03, 2015, 12:56:03 am »

This question is an infinitely perplexing daydream that in truth would probably need both expert historians and master speculative fiction writers working in collaboration to even begin to build a believable model.

Empires are both wonderful and horrible.  I mostly feel they're horrible, but I can't deny what magic they bring about, mostly through inter-cultural sharing, even if forced.  The politics, religion, language, and technology of the Roman empire have colored the landscape of the Western world in fundamental ways.

No Rome means no Senates as we know them, no Republics as we know them, etc.  Political systems and set-ups that still dramatically color our world.

There is an aspect we have to think about here, every petty dictator who takes power has in some way to justify his legitimacy. Because Rome was known as a great power most of the tyrants that followed would try and underpin their power by stressing a connection to the Roman Empire, and like virtually everything politicians say these connections are invariably spurious.
A place might be called the senate, and the people in it might be called Senators, but what they are and the system they work is not from a Roman Model. The forms of democracy we have in the 'West' are derived from Northern European culture and can be traced though institutions like the British Parliment, Icelandic Althing back to the Village Moot to the Germanic (or northen Celtic) culture which founded these institutions.


Quote
No Rome means no Latin.  Therefore no Spanish, no French, no Portuguese, no Italian, no English as we know it, English being something like 65% Latin-influenced (or at least that's what my Latin professors claimed).  No ancient "Universal" language, and therefore no ancient universal written language.

Spanish not derived from Latin, French although a Romanesque language most people in France did not speak it until in the 19th century a centralising government enforced its use. I admit to not being sure but I don't think Portuguese is a Romanesque language either. With English it is a Germanic language, it has a small element of Norman French bits added and then words picked up from every part of the world but its central structure is entirely of a Germanic form.
Latin was not even universal within the Roman empire. It is now thought of as a universal language because of the vicar of Rome's need to exert his authority, but that is long after Rome.

Quote
No Rome means no Roman-influenced warfare.  No Viking shield-walls, no professional armies as we know them, no siege engines as we know them, etc.

The shield wall, was not invented by Romans, To give an idea of how undeveloped and incapable of invention the Romans were, the siege engines they had were taken from the Greeks and in the five hundred years the Romans used them not once did they think of putting a wheel on one, so they had to be put together on the battlefield and if they wanted to move them they had to take them all apart carried on some slave or troops back and then be put together in a new place.
As for professional armies, Every so called barbarian leader (apart from Attila) was a Roman General demanding land to settle on which was the normal payment for a Roman legion when completing its service. So the question is were the Romans destroyed by Barbarians or their own armies? 

Quote
No Rome means no Jesus, no Constantine, no Mohammed.

Good

Quote
No aqueducts, no Roman architecture, no lead pipes, no Roman bath-houses...

Aqueducts see Mesopotamian, and Alexander refused to use them because a city which relied on them was too vulnerable. Plumbing goes way back to the very first cities in India, and there are examples four and a half thousand years ago in Scotland. Lots of people had lead pipes.
The Celts did not need to build bath houses, they had soap. The Romans thought anybody using soap was just filth, they scraped dirt off with knives.

Quote

Unless all of these things were developed by some other culture...and that's again, more daydreaming than anything else.

No its just facts.

Quote

I feel silly even discussing it, for my knowledge of the VAST influence of Rome over the course of history is bleakly inadequate even though more extensive than the average bear's.

That is part of the problem. In teaching history a sort of shorthand is used, often Roman does not stand for Rome, but covers anything that was used, made, or happened in Europe or the Mediterranean, near East or North Africa after the Stone age, unless specifically Greek or Egyptian and even then it might be called Roman as a short hand for the Classical world. So anybody who does not nit pick makes the presumption Rome must have been Great.

Added to that people use terms to justify their position like An American Right winger calling himself a Patriot to gain credibility, to say he is more in line with the Founders of America than the President. So the Pope in dispute with other Christian Churches will stress Peter, and the Eternal City of Rome. Which then also has the effect of upping the standing of the Roman Empire in the eyes of people who follow that. And also the tribal leaders who followed Rome needed some sort of justification for their power so hit on terms Like Holy Roman Emperor.

The one thing the Romans had was a belief in tyranny, of power, of might is right, of Caesar. and that has got everywhere. King, Tzar, Kaiser, Khan, are all derived from the word Caesar, not a thing I will celebrate.


PS Mr Pakled
Quote
Life might still be 'nasty, brutish, and short
Once the power of Rome ended, People were more healthy, as testified that in Archaeology, the average hight of skeletons found after the fall of Rome increased. And there would be no need for the Renaissance because the old knowledge would not have been lost as it was during the last three hundred years of the Empire.       
Logged
Vagabond GentleMan
Zeppelin Captain
*****
United States United States


Clockwork Sepia


WWW
« Reply #19 on: January 03, 2015, 02:46:48 am »

I'll address more of this later, you raise some very interesting points, but I am gonna have to argue one thing right now before I disappear for the night:

Spanish, French, Romanian, Italian, and Portuguese are absolutely Latin-based, that's why they're called the "ROMANce" languages.  Googling "Romance languages" would provide a longer list and explanation, as there are a handful of Latin-based languages that are less well-known because they're less spoken.  There is no room for argument here, these ARE the languages derived from Latin, it's linguistic fact. 
English without Latin would be greatly stripped down, and though yes, English is Germanic in origin, the vast majority of polysyllabic words are either Greek or Latin, and we use far more Latin than Greek.

In this post, "address", "interesting", "disappear", "absolutely", "romance", "languages", "provide", "in", "majority" the "syllable" part of "polysyllabic", and "use"  are all Latin-based, though some come from the French that came from Latin; and this is only a once-over list.
Logged
J. Wilhelm
╬ Admiral und Luftschiffengel ╬
Moderator
Immortal
*
United States United States


Sentisne fortunatum punkus? Veni. Diem meum comple


WWW
« Reply #20 on: January 03, 2015, 03:56:06 am »

*monocle drops*
Spanish not derived from Latin?  Huh  Mr. Jonb, old friend, do you even know what you're writing? Having Castillian as my first language and having studied the Greco-Latin roots of Castillian in my Highschool grammar courses, I must object.

I would go into depth, but I'll limit myself into saying that Castillian is a doubly-Latinized language, a derivative of earlier Romance languages more closely related to Portuguese and Catalan, which was re-mixed with Latin and some Arabic during the Re-conquest period in Spain, as the Christian kingdoms of Navarra, Leon, Castille, etc. pushed the Moors south and out of the Iberian peninsula in the centuries preceeding the 1492 unification of Spain.

The double latinization came about because along the Castilian ("Land of Castles," Central Iberia), corridor, all manner of nationalities came to fight the Moors by way of Castille.  As the people leading the armed forces tended to be lords, these educated people spoke Latin as a common tongue, and so the local Romance dialects over time re-amalgamated with Latin into what became the old version of Castillian, which was chosen as the language of the the Kingdom after 1492.  So Spanish is not only a Ronance language, but a doubly Latinized one.

Roughly 75% of the Castillian vocabulary is directly borrowed from Latin...  I can tell you much more, bur I don't want to derail the thread  too much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_language
« Last Edit: January 03, 2015, 04:30:45 am by J. Wilhelm » Logged
jonb
Snr. Officer
****
England England



« Reply #21 on: January 03, 2015, 04:27:12 am »

My knowledge came from a set of maps I had of language distribution across Europe which had Spanish only partly related to Italian and French so I will back down and say on that you are right. I am sorry to have made the error.

However with English, there are lots of things that come into play, English is not in any way descended from Latin, although it has a large number of words added directly and indirectly from Latin. We have to look at the context and the history of the English, Where the low status of the indigenous English caused anybody of Status to reject Anglo-Saxon in favour of French Greek or Latin terms and these words were injected into English. So we have Latin and Latin spelling of Anglo-Saxon words in English but that is nothing to do with the Romans but the Politics of Britain at a much latter time.
So we end up with things like the Bushism
'the French have no word for entrepreneur'
Well we all laughed, but the truth is they don't. Entrepreneur comes from a French word but its exact meaning is not the same as the way we use it in English. There is no word in French that has the same meaning as 'Entreprenuer' does in English. So as the word sounds the same as the French original, but has a different meaning is the word 'Entrepreneur' the way we use it French at all? Television is both Greek and Latin but is a purely English or rather Scots invention, thus no Latin speaker would have the faintest idea what you meant if you said the word to them.
English without the Latin might sound different but its structure and meanings would be unaffected.
So for instance if the word 'use' had not been added, old English has the word 'broc' which has the same meaning.  
Logged
jonb
Snr. Officer
****
England England



« Reply #22 on: January 03, 2015, 04:30:19 am »

MR J. Wilhelm my hand has properly been slapped, and I am very sorry.
Logged
J. Wilhelm
╬ Admiral und Luftschiffengel ╬
Moderator
Immortal
*
United States United States


Sentisne fortunatum punkus? Veni. Diem meum comple


WWW
« Reply #23 on: January 03, 2015, 04:35:28 am »

MR J. Wilhelm my hand has properly been slapped, and I am very sorry.
Grin. Apology accepted.  Good thing because I don't think my inner Don Quixote would have stood still after suffering this affront.  Also at this hour of the night, it's very difficult to get a hold of Sancho and his donkey.
Logged
jonb
Snr. Officer
****
England England



« Reply #24 on: January 03, 2015, 04:48:12 am »

I am the donkey as you have just shown.

PS
Mind you, In that this thread has become me verse the Roman Empire, I wonder who is the one tilting at windmills? No you're right its not me, I am the one fighting giants with flappy arms.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2015, 05:14:18 am by jonb » Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.317 seconds with 15 queries.