Romans in Britain: Genocide & Christianity?

[Robert Vermaat]

the number exceeded 2,000,000, which must have been a huge percentage of the Gallic population. So, yes, I would catagorize the "conquest" of Gaul as genocide. This says very little for Caesar as a "good man."

Did Caesar not exaggerate? Gaul seems to have done fine after the conquest, I know of no evidence that there were wholly depopulated areas which somehow lagged behind in the development of Roman Gaul.
It says little or nothing about Caesar - at the time, warlords did kill enemy populations, and the Romans were no different. No one expected him to do anything else, did they? I don't believe any of Caesar's advisaries ever accused him of being a ruthless killer - in fact I think he was admired for it.
It mattered little whether entire populations were wiped out or just the men - the women and children could hardly count on continuing their existance when the men perished on the battlefield. When tribes went to war instead of tenfding the fuields, the chances of starvation were high anyway.

[Alanus]

Nathan and Robert,

True, the term genocide had yet to be coined. And also true that Caesar's intent was not to wipe out the population of Gaul, merely to "pacify" the Gauls as strictly as possible. I suppose (coming from a Judeo-Christian background and also a septigenarian) that I am appalled at the idea of total massacre (as at Avaricum and the Rhine), whereas the simple lopping of heads (Venetia) and right hands (Uxellodunum) was a mere drop in the bucket of social consciousness. Perhps Caesar was applauded for it in Rome (giving us much to think about concerning ancient morality), but he was also critisized in the Senate by equally as many opponents... and one of the reasons he finally had to cross the Rubicon.

I will, however, never view Caesar as did Will Durant and a host of Caesarphiles as a "good man." If he was the consumate example of Roman "virture," then it speaks ill of that society. But again, it was standard for the time, and certainly he was no Haman the Agagite or the equally guilty Mordicai who did execute the truest form of a word yet to reach Johnson's dictionary. :wink: