The Instigator
marriors85
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Neonix
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

The Roman Empire is better than Norse (vikings)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Neonix
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/18/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,361 times Debate No: 25174
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (2)

 

marriors85

Pro

Rome is better than Norse in many ways which i will explain in the process. Rome has lived for a short time but they brought order to western Europe, made a language which was the root for many languages such as Spanish, French, and Italian. They also were smarter than the Norse because they made technologies that been the basics of many machines today. Rome is more recognized in the world than the Norse in many ways. Romans have even effected our way of life like marriage. In other words, I had a dispute with a friend who likes and supports the Norse and I want somebody else to challenge me in explaining me why Norse civilization is greater than the Roman empire.
Neonix

Con

The first Norse tribes are mentioned by a Greek navigator in the 4th century. The tribes where sighted around Jutland and Norway. (F. Owen, 1960)

The later tribes where divided by region, but distinctly connected by heritage and culture. The tribes included:
  • Allemani
  • Anglo-Saxons
  • Burgundii
  • Lombards
  • Saxons
  • Goths
From 247 AD to 269 AD, the Goths engaged Rome in relentless skirmishes. After killing Emperor Decius in battle, the Roman empire was forced to recognize the sovereignty of the Germanic tribes. Emperor Constantine eventually entered into a political treaty with the Germanics, paying the tribes a substantial retainer to assist the Roman empire in securing the southern regions of western Europe. (Watkins, SJSU)

The Viking bloodline beat Rome in battle, forcing a surrender of territory.















http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com... ( F. Owen, The Germanic People, 1960)http://www.sjsu.edu... (San Jose State University, Watkins)
Debate Round No. 1
marriors85

Pro

The fall of Rome wasn't just because that barbarians sacked. Rome's military was strong enough to hold of the barbarians. during the time, Rome was spilt into three sides because of three cousins wanted the throne after Constantine II died. later the three sides turned into two, West vs East. The sack of Rome was during the failure of gaining the western side of the whole Roman empire to bring it back together. If Rome hadn't spilt, it would held against the hordes of barbarians and subdue them. another reason was Hannibal, he was Rome's greatest foe which took three Punic wars to capture Carthage which was described as a "Paradise for homosexuals" i have nothing against gays but that also led to Rome's fall.

1. Rome's military would held against the barbarians
2. Rome turned weaker after capturing Carthage
3. The civil war disturb all of Rome

ps. I'm new to this site so sorry about the topic and this is my first debate online but don't take lightly on me, I want to be challenged.

sources: http://www.roman-empire.net...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Neonix

Con

My opponent declared that “the fall of Rome wasn’t just because that the Barbarians sacked”.

I’m perfectly aware of this. I never said that Rome fell only because of the Vikings. I said:

  • The Vikings enjoyed a military victory that Rome never recovered from.
  • Rome lost territory to the Vikings.
  • Rome eventually allied with the Vikings for their military prowess.

Rome not only lost the war with the Germanic tribes, it began to depend on future military alliances with the Vikings just to retain its southern territory.

Consider the German folk hero “Hermann”, also known as Arminius. His victory campaign against three Roman legions was considered by most to be the beginning of the end for the Roman Empire.

“German, Roman, and British historians recognize Hermann as one of the most ingenious personalities who
precipitated the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of a Germanic Europe.”
(Hermann Missouri, 2010)

http://www.hermannmissouri.com... (Hermann Missouri, 2010)

Debate Round No. 2
marriors85

Pro

that part I have to admit is true, but like i stated in my previous round, Rome became weaker after capturing Carthage. Hannibal was one of Rome's greatest enemies to state out, more legions were lost in the Punic wars than every other feud there was. The siege of Carthage lasted three years until they submitted due to starvation. with the alliances of the barbarians. Rome's society became more "composite" because of mix of Goths and Romans at the time. The barbarians were hired as specialized units but they were also day laborers as well because there wasn't enough workforce in the camps. Rome had realized the power of their barbarians neighbors. Barbarians started to migrate into the Roman empire and expanded it unlike their allies in the south.

you said that Vikings helped the romans but they joined the military force of Rome, yes they supported Rome but the generals of rome had to be Roman, not Goth. the reason why Rome didn't capture Germany because they were going to get low profit from wasting a lot of wealth to gain the land.

(I know I probably lost in this debate but at least I learned from my failures and that's a important lesson)

sources: http://www.historyworld.net... , http://www.fsmitha.com...
Neonix

Con

My opponent conceded the following:



    • Rome lost the military campaign against the Vikings.
    • Rome lost territory to the Vikings.
    • Rome paid the Vikings to work and fight along-side their military.




Undeniably, history sees the Vikings as the superior. The 16th century scholar Tacitus wrote:

"Arminius, without doubt Germania's liberator, who challenged the Roman people not in its beginnings like other kings and leaders, but in the peak of its empire; in battles with changing success, undefeated in the war."



My opponent accepted the burden to prove that the Roman empire is better that the Norse Empire. I would argue, in order to be greater, you cannot suffer an unrecoverable military defeat by this opponent.


In that sense, I fulfilled my burden to prove that the Roman empire is either worse or equal, yet certainly not better. In fact, I could say:"The better man won".


Let the evidence show, the better man was a Viking hero who destroyed Rome from within, even going so far as to achieve moderate nobility within his enemy culture.


Vote Con.


http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RebornPatriot 4 years ago
RebornPatriot
Ok if you think marriors is a duped account than you are idiodic and extremely ignornant. I don't have duped accounts.
Posted by GenesisCreation 4 years ago
GenesisCreation
Uhu...sure.
Posted by RebornPatriot 4 years ago
RebornPatriot
Marriors is not a duplicate account, i don't do historical debates much and what is the purpose og having a duplicate account, please explain
Posted by GenesisCreation 4 years ago
GenesisCreation
Good one Neonix. Thanks for the read. I would agree that your opponent has a duped account. If you want I can reasonably award conduct also. That was some 007 spy work with the account screenshots. Lol.
Posted by marriors85 4 years ago
marriors85
@Neonix no, he's a friend from school and he introduced me to this site so no okay, we just have alot in common
Posted by Neonix 4 years ago
Neonix
http://www.debate.org...

Is this a duplicate account for reborn patriot? Something smells fishhhhhyyyyy!
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
That's why I hate these kinds of debates. All it eventually comes down to is how you define better. Because you know both of the debaters are going to define better in terms that they can only win under. So you don't actually end up debating the finer points of two societies, but rather how the word better applies to the situation more relevantly.
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
I'm not accepting it xD and yea, I know that. But, it is impossible to say who is better without an objective scale of well "betterness"
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
I think it's more encompassing than just military strength and accomplishment, but if you want to focus on that then sure.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
marriors85NeonixTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a lot of historical fire power to draw from that went unused. Con established a military victory for the Vikings that Pro was only able to 'counter' by pointing out that Rome hired the Vikings after, which is more a point for Vikings than Romans.
Vote Placed by GenesisCreation 4 years ago
GenesisCreation
marriors85NeonixTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Marriors85 is definately a duplicated account. Sources and arguments awarded to Neonix for quickly establishing the Viking military superiority. I really like the quote by Tacitus. I never really viewed it from that angle.