Ihr Seid verfluchte hunde! (you are damned dogs!)
The basic reason was for entertainment. Some historians like to put symbolism in the hunting event by proposing that they were showing the people the superiority of the Romans over forces of nature. But to the people of the time it was exciting entertainment as the hunts were staged in elaborate forest settings, and in the Colosseum, live trees and shrubs were used.
The actual leader, is called a tsar
It would be safe to say no, Britain did not have straight roads before the Romans landed. At the time of the Roman takeover Britain was divided into various tribes and each tribe had a leader. They were not civil engineers. Most of Britain's roads were muddy footpaths before the Romans came.
The Roman or Latin word for Spain is Hispania.
Although we cannot be certain of the exact date Romans was written, it is generally accepted that the book of Romans was written in the winter of A.D. 57-58.However, because Romans chapter 18 does not exist (The book ends at chapter 16), I think it is safe to say that Romans 18 was not written.
The answer is "barbarid"
The basic reason was for entertainment. Some historians like to put symbolism in the hunting event by proposing that they were showing the people the superiority of the Romans over forces of nature. But to the people of the time it was exciting entertainment as the hunts were staged in elaborate forest settings, and in the Colosseum, live trees and shrubs were used.
Al haarib
It's safe to say that most of the Romans had slaves with the exception of the very poor.It's safe to say that most of the Romans had slaves with the exception of the very poor.It's safe to say that most of the Romans had slaves with the exception of the very poor.It's safe to say that most of the Romans had slaves with the exception of the very poor.It's safe to say that most of the Romans had slaves with the exception of the very poor.It's safe to say that most of the Romans had slaves with the exception of the very poor.It's safe to say that most of the Romans had slaves with the exception of the very poor.It's safe to say that most of the Romans had slaves with the exception of the very poor.It's safe to say that most of the Romans had slaves with the exception of the very poor.
a good man
I would say the Romans because they had better technology.
chilaw
Romans
Some would say the Romans were civilised but others would disagree.
No, the Russians did not descend from the ancient Romans. Anthropologists say that modern Russians are of Slavic descent.No, the Russians did not descend from the ancient Romans. Anthropologists say that modern Russians are of Slavic descent.No, the Russians did not descend from the ancient Romans. Anthropologists say that modern Russians are of Slavic descent.No, the Russians did not descend from the ancient Romans. Anthropologists say that modern Russians are of Slavic descent.No, the Russians did not descend from the ancient Romans. Anthropologists say that modern Russians are of Slavic descent.No, the Russians did not descend from the ancient Romans. Anthropologists say that modern Russians are of Slavic descent.No, the Russians did not descend from the ancient Romans. Anthropologists say that modern Russians are of Slavic descent.No, the Russians did not descend from the ancient Romans. Anthropologists say that modern Russians are of Slavic descent.No, the Russians did not descend from the ancient Romans. Anthropologists say that modern Russians are of Slavic descent.
Leader?...Well you can say James!
say no more!