History is constantly being rewritten to suit the various regimes that come into power. The Roman Empire was an aggressive imperialistic superpower seeking world domination through military force, in its time. Viking invasions were the same at a smaller scale but they were forced to a great extend, because of the harsh conditions in their original territories.
2006-08-02 00:03:36
·
answer #1
·
answered by FAINOMENON 2
·
2⤊
1⤋
There is a difference between fact and interpretation of the fact. The facts do not change. The interpretation does. So, a battle (a proved fact) may be "heroically won" or "heroically lost". The result from this battle is naturally good for one side, and bad for the other.
The interpretation of historical facts is most often what is considered "history" and, no doubt, it is the winning side's interpretation which is more popular. However, there is no valid history, if there are no facts.
On your question - the Romans and the Vikings were both invaders and immigrants - because they fought the locals and settled on their land. As did the first European settlers of present day USA, the Latin America countries and many others. Land is usually the motive for any invasion.
2006-08-02 07:24:28
·
answer #2
·
answered by Eve 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
History is always rewritten... Its the biggest lie and everybody tends to believe it for some stupid reason...
To prove my point how can the loosers of a battle write history? (they are all dead on the battlfield, and to my knowledge dead people dont care much for history), so history is always biased to the views of the victors...
In the case of the Vikings and Romans they were Immigrants, (they battled with the residents of the UK and won so their view of things stands!) they came to educate and liberate the UK from the "Dark Ages", Heresy and all that Jazz.
2006-08-02 06:55:15
·
answer #3
·
answered by donnchadhjh 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
History is always rewritten... Its the biggest lie and everybody tends to believe it for some stupid reason...like has man walked on the moon yes you say Neil Armstrong was first.Well when he came down that ladder who was holding the CAMERA.NASA will not even tell you this. so its truth man has NEVER walked on the moon
2006-08-02 07:11:29
·
answer #4
·
answered by refknowsbest 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
History is constantly being rewritten to bend it to the way people want you to think or believe..
2006-08-02 06:51:01
·
answer #5
·
answered by LokoLobo 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
History is constantly rewritten.
2006-08-02 10:27:11
·
answer #6
·
answered by Alexander Shannon 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
initially they were invaders, both of them. As their armies withdrew many thousands decided they wanted to stay here and set up home as they had begun relationships here with women and had fathered offspring... those ones became immigrants.
2006-08-02 06:55:40
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
That might have been me. The situation remains the same - they were not the indigenous population.
Plus, the first wave might have been invaders, but eventually whole communities settled.
2006-08-02 06:52:05
·
answer #8
·
answered by Roxy 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Chase is cool. Invaders where? Not in Rome.
2006-08-02 06:52:29
·
answer #9
·
answered by Gersin 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Every country rewrites it to its liking... That's why if you ask people of two different countries they have different ideas about how things were for the supposedly same event...
2006-08-02 06:51:31
·
answer #10
·
answered by kichka_2002 4
·
0⤊
0⤋