[TheloniusPhunk]

That's a good point. Invading Gaul et al. was probably more lucrative than invading a country like Afghanistan as the Romans were more obviously and unabashedly imperialistic and that war had to do with territorial expansion.

The invasion of Gaul is more akin to the way (relatively) early Americans forced out the Native Americans, and their culture certainly changed/doesn't really exist anymore. WWII Japan and Nazi Germany are examples of a places where a short war changed the culture.

The reason it won't work any more is because that style of 'total war' appears to have gone out of style. Probably a good thing, though Fareed Zakaria was on the Daily Show the other night talking about how one reason America has been so powerful is because Europe was leveled in WWII and the US had the industry to rebuild.

[quadhome]

> The reason it won't work any more is because that style of 'total war' appears to have gone out of style.

The effect of nukes not withstanding, I think 66 years is too short of a history to say that "total war" has gone out of fashion.

[hessenwolf]

I agree it is much too short, but I think we need a good solid baby boom before we will take arms in the near future.

I was also thinking that economics and not war are behind the spread of the English language. You could argue that movies (culture) also cause people to learn a language, but the movies are coming from the place that has the money and industry to make them.