There is probably no single right answer.  If we take the example of the Iraq War, it may have technically ended but the geopolitical questions that directly result from it may remain more than a decade.  A better history book on the war might therefore not be written until 2030 or so.  Likewise, 9/11 caused effects that will need to be examined in better context perhaps 20 years down the road.  The invasion of Iraq is also an ongoing point of contention that seems to shape present-day politics, so the passions of today could very well influence current writing on that topic.

But depending on the type of history we’re talking about, I think that fewer than 10 years might suffice.  For example, if the text is on a topic which doesn’t involve widespread ramifications, or which is local, less time might be needed to write a good book.

The forum fizzled out, and I was ready to be done with it in the traditional sense.  No sense in running a forum if no one’s going to participate.  Instead, I decided to turn the site into a blog where I could indoctrinate people with my opinions on everything from history to politics to technology to culture.  Oh, and I decided to retain the forum functions of the site, but put it behind the scenes so that it’s behind the facade of the blog.

So basically WCF turned in to a blog site with a weakened forum system in lieu of replies.  Really, there’s a lot of great information in the threads here, so I didn’t want to lose all that.  Still, I wanted a change from the status quo.

In fact, I reckon we could go further than that: at least from the beginning of the Empire ‘Rome’ was in essence a Common Market favouring the rich and powerful in every territory that would accept membership, and gradually extending the citizenship to more and more people. We tend to think of the Roman Empire as analogous to the British or French Empires, but where was the ‘metropolitan country’ – not the city of Rome, surely, which was eventually dropped as the capital? Roman diplomacy consisted of offering a choice to the powerful: join or else. Most joined and became Roman, wherever they happened to live.

I imagine the choice to become a Roman citizen was not as difficult or drastic as it may seem, even if one were rich/powerful.  True, one would be giving up some autonomy, but one would also be gaining security from the Mediterranean’s most powerful security force, not to mention access to things such as public baths, arenas, markets…  I imagine that most of the rich could flourish more under the Romans than they could under their own rule.

I noticed that Donnie didn’t answer the question of effectiveness. Which one of those categories aligns most closely with being effective? Probably best tactician – Stonewall Jackson.