>>> UK version: After conquering France, Caesar campaigned in Britain, and >>> fought the druids.
>> Surely in both cases we'd say "Gaul"?
When I learned it, Caesar conquered France. I'm fairly certain my high school text called it France, and mentioned that it became the Roman province of Gaul. Yes, I now know the sins of using a modern nation-state to describe the land of an ancient people, but sometimes you've got to use the tools at hand.
I have never seen used "Gaul" to cover anything in the British Isles. Well, other than the French "Pays de Galles" for Wales, which isn't quite the same thing.
BTW: When did the Romans drop the "transalpine" adjective for modern day France? In the early Republic the "cisalpine" parts of Gaul (aka Northern Italy) kept them fairly busy. But I don't remember seeing that distinction after the Punic Wars.
>>> US version: Founder of the Roman Empire.
>>> Maybe a bit exaggerated, but that's how school history relates to those >>> events.
>>From what Chris was saying, would the Americans know that much??
Semantics. He was pretty much a monarch. As long as he payed lip service to the Republican institutions, he could get away with whatever he wanted. The Empire may not have been finalized under him, but he pushed the Republic in that direction. I personally consider the two triumvirates and the period between them as transitional, but you can draw the line wherever you like.
Hmm. All Rome, no Whitewall. Sorry 'bout that.
Powered by hypermail