If they were awarded a Triumph (had to be an enemy body count of at least 5,000) they would parade through the city in a chariot with wagons loaded with spoils, and prisoners and their soldiers marching behind. After religious sacrifice and ceremonies, the captured leader of the enemy was strangled.
what would victorians do after chritmas dinner
Both of those countries were forced to join Napoleans Empire so i seems unlikely that there would be any undefeated generals from these countries, however if there were any generals of this kind their victories had no effect on the over all campain.
Poor victorians would mainly live on the streets and would not have much money
the victorians would have a bath at least once a month if they were lucky
As Victorians were in a totally different age, why would they like or dislike Cromwell !
Victorians would put Nuremberg angels on top of Christmas trees.
Tony Lema got the nickname Champagne Tony when he told the media that he would serve them champagne if he won the Orange County Open tournament in 1962. Frequently, he would celebrate victories with champagne.
thay would be told of
tatti
There is no specific collective noun for victories. A collective noun that suits the situation should be used, for example: a string of victories would be a good thing; a smattering of victories, not as good.
No. The Confederate army seemed to have more aggressive generals. They were pronged to charge and move instead of stay in a defensive position. This brought a lot of victories at the start of the war but it also resulted in high casualties. I used to play wargames and you learn a lot about the effect a general would have on a battle. Most war games rate the Confederate generals higher than the Union general---on the average.
split up what do you think