On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 02:31:39PM +0000, Redvers Davies wrote:
> > Assuming you're not a Masai tribesperson. And assuming that the
> > Romans weren't lying about the Celts (Though why would they want to do
> > that?)
> 
> It would seem to me to be counter-productive.  If you want to conquer
> a country you don't spread rumours that they drink their victims blood.

Well why not? It allows you to claim a moral reason for conquering them in the first 
place (which is as
necessary for keeping morale and a sense of purpose among your own people as anything 
else), and quite
possibly has longer-term military benefits, as in "The Celts were a bunch of mad, 
blood-drinking nutters, 
But we conquered them anyway, so why don't you open your doors and play nicely, and we 
won't have to
unleash our fearsome military power upon you".

For some reason, the mental image of a horde of wild Celts quaffing blood keeps mixing 
in my head with that
of a bunch of perl programmers in a cellar bar, quaffing TVRs...

Must be the full moon :)

-- 

simon batistoni | [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 stop right here
 cos i know where i'm going to

Reply via email to