07-24-2002, 12:02 AM
Marcus Antonius Celer wrote:<br>
<br>
"Just as a last point, despite the politically correct revisionism going around in history at the moment, the general quality of life almost always increased once a land had been added to an empire. Just look at the building programmes instigated by the Romans in Britain and Germany, and consider that with an entire empire's resources to draw on, famine became a thing of the past for most people. Also law and order, peace, prosperity, justice, opportunity etc ............... is it such a bad thing for people to want to emulate this today?"<br>
<br>
That may have been the case with ancient Rome, but quite the opposite seems to be happening in our modern times. The existence of commercial 'empires' and 'imperial states' like the USA has drawn up a great gap between the rich and the needy, between those who have too much food to eat and those who starve. While the introduction of 'civilisation' by Rome to the conquered/assimilated lands may have benefited the new subject people, the same cannot be said for other expansionist empires in history. The Spanish 'invasion' of the Americas is one notorious example. No benefits there for the natives, simply the systematic extermination of their culture and people.<br>
<br>
Furthermore I think it would be rather naive to assume that all the subject peoples of the Roman Empire were content with their life under the Imperial yoke. Rebellions by the British Celts and the Jews of Judea showed that 'quality of life' did not only consist of physical needs (which may have been adequately met for them), but also the human rights that these people felt they were entitled to i.e. liberty.<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/uauxilia.showPublicProfile?language=EN>Auxilia</A> at: 7/24/02 2:05:44 am<br></i>
<br>
"Just as a last point, despite the politically correct revisionism going around in history at the moment, the general quality of life almost always increased once a land had been added to an empire. Just look at the building programmes instigated by the Romans in Britain and Germany, and consider that with an entire empire's resources to draw on, famine became a thing of the past for most people. Also law and order, peace, prosperity, justice, opportunity etc ............... is it such a bad thing for people to want to emulate this today?"<br>
<br>
That may have been the case with ancient Rome, but quite the opposite seems to be happening in our modern times. The existence of commercial 'empires' and 'imperial states' like the USA has drawn up a great gap between the rich and the needy, between those who have too much food to eat and those who starve. While the introduction of 'civilisation' by Rome to the conquered/assimilated lands may have benefited the new subject people, the same cannot be said for other expansionist empires in history. The Spanish 'invasion' of the Americas is one notorious example. No benefits there for the natives, simply the systematic extermination of their culture and people.<br>
<br>
Furthermore I think it would be rather naive to assume that all the subject peoples of the Roman Empire were content with their life under the Imperial yoke. Rebellions by the British Celts and the Jews of Judea showed that 'quality of life' did not only consist of physical needs (which may have been adequately met for them), but also the human rights that these people felt they were entitled to i.e. liberty.<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/uauxilia.showPublicProfile?language=EN>Auxilia</A> at: 7/24/02 2:05:44 am<br></i>
