roman atrocities

[TFLAVIUSAMBIORIX]

not meaning to start flame wars, just pointing out reality, we all play roman without realizing what we are representing.

I have definitely come to the conclusion that roman reenacting is definitely as bad if not worse than doing nazi WWII.

find the scenes of SS loading the jews on a train to go to labor camps, separating out the fit from the unfit, etc., now replace the SS men with legionaries, the trains with carts, replace...... oh, wait there is nothing else to replace, it is the same thing.
so we are reenacting the instrument of horrific crimes against humanity, why don't we tell the public about this?, that is not a rhetorical question, I would be interested to hear your answer.

I will keep doing roman, but perhaps I will have to put a new spin on the roman empire, the portrayel, etc., it may even be that due to some moral issues the more I think about it, I might have to do full time rebellious auxiliary. I do RSI fascist, red army, etc. but these organizations were not actually the instruments of the atrocity in most cases. There is no evidence that a Folgore trooper ever killed a jew knowingly and for that purpose, red army artillery didnt put people on trains to gulags, these are considered very un-PC, so roman is to me much worse than this.

if you need documentation I have it all, caesar's gallic wars, Josephus, tacitus, cicero, etc. yeah, from a roman perspective, think about how much they are not telling us.

who systematically killed of, or forcefully assimilated millions of people, making money off the act, lulling the people with speeches and gifts, and did this successfully?

A. Adolph hitler
B. Julius Caesar

answers would be interesting.........

[Maximus]

Well every fighting force in history has committed attrociteis, we may no be able to change it but we have to accept it. The romans were ruthless at times, but so were the anericans in WWII and the russians. After the war finished partisans killed a US soldier in a town, and the US massacred the towns male population between the ages of 17 and 60. The russians had one of their soldiers killed by a sniper and they used artilery to level the town. The answer is we tend to overlook it. People tend to overlook atrocities. We are interested in the spreading of history (and fun), not the crimes our personas committed.

I can say this though, some of my ancestors were probably involved in at least one massacre (over 50% italinan and i mean real italian, i can trace my family tree back to about the late 1st century and I assume someone had to be in the legions)

[Theodosius the Great]

forcefully assimilated millions of people

Huh ? You mean the masses ? I don't think the Romans cared one bit as long as you paid your taxes and didn't stir up trouble (real or perceived).

so we are reenacting the instrument of horrific crimes against humanity, why don't we tell the public about this?,

Well that's overstating it a bit much, IMHO. We have to remember that there were unprecedented centuries of peace. Most of the atrocities you speak of took place under the mid-Republic and Early Empire (1st C.). And they were sporatic. They did it to be ostentatious so that everyone who had a thought about rebelling or warring against Rome would think twice and it worked by and large. Once those atrocities were seared into everyone's memory for all time the Romans didn't need to repeat any of them. It was a brilliant psycological tactic, IMO. Ancient Psy-ops :lol:

Besides, how do you think the Romans stayed on top for so long ? It wasn't by making nice :wink:

Having said all that, I don't dispute that the Romans were the cruelest of ancient peoples, even outdoing the Assyrians.

I have definitely come to the conclusion that roman reenacting is definitely as bad if not worse than doing nazi WWII.

What about the Japanese ? I think they were worse than the Germans. And no one's killed more than Chairman Mao (mostly his own people).

[TFLAVIUSAMBIORIX]

only confined to the early empire?? slaves came from somewhere you know.......

anyway, I am not saying that they were the worst in history, I am only saying that they were horrible and brutal, like everyone, so we do not serve to educate the public when we show only one side of the story, aqueducts and roads are great, but we should remind the public that there is a horrible price for all this. that is all I am saying, show the public the truth, not just the 'oh the wonderful aqueducts and discipline' side of it.

mao killed over 20 million, I am not comparing them to mao.

all that said, in all situations I would have been right there not questioning, I would have butchered civilians in A.D. 40, I would have been easily brainwashed by hitler in the 30s and 40s, I would have followed mao, I am not some noble creature myself.

there is a flip side: the romans paid with high casualties, we also forget to treat the romans who fell for the patria with reverence, personally I take a moment of silence for all vets, especially the overlooked ones: Ancient, the SS men, the black shirts, what they all did was no different from we do when we serve in the military.

BTW, great responses, healthy debate is very important to any hobby, never stop debating, when debate stops and nobody questions that is when tyrants come in. If anything throw more arguments against me, question my posts, question my views.

[Tarbicus]

I don't think the Romans cared one bit as long as you paid your taxes and didn't stir up trouble (real or perceived).

Excellent point. Compare that to your average 20th C dictator who would have you snuffed out for the way you were born in the blink of an eye, as compared to a Roman who would try his best to persuade you to join his gang and bring your gods with you, I don't really compare them. There was the odd exception, but the timescales were quite different between atrocities I believe, so the batting average for good behaviour I suspect lies with Rome. Add the fact that they lived in what we could term a 'pre-Enlightenment' age then I think that only gives the Romans more kudos.

Rome's "war machine" should also be commonly termed its "construction team" IMHO.

[Robert Vermaat]

I have definitely come to the conclusion that roman reenacting is definitely as bad if not worse than doing nazi WWII.

find the scenes of SS loading the jews on a train to go to labor camps, separating out the fit from the unfit, etc., now replace the SS men with legionaries, the trains with carts, replace...... oh, wait there is nothing else to replace, it is the same thing.
so we are reenacting the instrument of horrific crimes against humanity, why don't we tell the public about this?, that is not a rhetorical question, I would be interested to hear your answer.

I disagree.
Sure, in terms of atrocities and cruelties, the Romans did their thing. They killed, raped, plundered, enslaved, etc. I think it’s a good thing to try to convey this to they audience, who often think that the Romans were very civilised.
However, the big (very big) difference is that you have to (must) look at the perspective. The Romans lived in a society that experienced most of these atrocities as normal. War was seen as awful, but accepted as such. Slavery was seen as something to avoid, but not as inhuman. The Romans and the peoples of their age had no Declaration of Human Rights, to give you an example.
On the other hand, Hitler, Stalin and Mao did their atrocities in an age where violence and mass murder were not common.
That’s the big difference – Roman times were harsh but there was no Iron Age philosophy of Human Rights or Amnesty International. Enlightenment and Liberalism, to name just two, were still very much a thing of the future. In the early to mid-XX century, there was. And makes all the difference. We know better that they did.

forcefully assimilated millions of people, making money off the act, lulling the people with speeches and gifts, and did this successfully?

Now that's just rubbish. Assimilating? No, the Romans were masters of accomodation (one of the secrets of the Ottoman Empire as well). The only thing apart from taxes was the religious thing about sacrificing to the emperor, I believe. Aaprt from that, every citizen and non-citizen could keep their own customs, gods, even language. I often hear that the Romans forced their subjects to speak Latin, but the evidence shows otherwise.

[Tarbicus]

On the other hand, Hitler, Stalin and Mao did their atrocities in an age where violence and mass murder were not common.

Must disagree there. The fact that they were mass murderers makes the age one of mass murder, if you catch my drift. The 20th Century, was the bloodiest in the history of the human race, with the 21st not getting off to a good start, and I seriously cannot equate the Romans with them.

[Robert Vermaat]

On the other hand, Hitler, Stalin and Mao did their atrocities in an age where violence and mass murder were not common.

Must disagree there. The fact that they were mass murderers makes the age one of mass murder, if you catch my drift. The 20th Century, was the bloodiest in the history of the human race, with the 21st not getting off to a good start, and I seriously cannot equate the Romans with them.

No, I can't agree to that. I don’t mean an ‘age of violence/mass murder’ as a period in which it occurred a lot (yes I read the latest edition of National Gepgraphic), but how it was looked upon in terms of good/bad, accepted/not
We all see Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot as mass murderers because from our point of view their action were bad (yes, I realise that some groups at the time may not have shared that view). My point was that mass murder in Roman times was not necessarily seen as bad. I mean, murder could have a ritual purpose then – that’s a level of acceptance that makes such atrocities totally different from our times.

[Praefectusclassis]

Perhaps one should add that in the case of 'loading people on a train' (tread carefully in this subject area and that is an admin warning!) there was an ideology behind it, which did these things far outside the warzone. The Romans were indeed responsible for great murder, as in Caesar in Gaul (although the numbers might actually be overstated, instead of under), that was always shortly after a battle or siege. In the ancient world, people who lost a war were at the mercy of the victor: plain and simple. IMHO, it's quite a leap from there to deciding that a certain people is so inferior, they should all be killed off.

[TFLAVIUSAMBIORIX]

"Now that's just rubbish. Assimilating? No, the Romans were masters of accomodation (one of the secrets of the Ottoman Empire as well). The only thing apart from taxes was the religious thing about sacrificing to the emperor, I believe. Aaprt from that, every citizen and non-citizen could keep their own customs, gods, even language. I often hear that the Romans forced their subjects to speak Latin, but the evidence shows otherwise."

I wouldnt say so, cicero clearly speaks of horrible crimes by people in power in the eastern provinces, one of them is in fact forceful assimilation.

BTW, no offense is meant to anyone here it is just a thought, I have been reading and translating alot lately, and have come across lots of parallels that's all.

again, with it being a cultural norm, I would have partaken as much, or probably more than the others. I am no angel, I would have been first in line to crucify someone.

[TFLAVIUSAMBIORIX]

I bet if smiting weren't diabled I would have a karma of about -30 right now :lol:

[tlclark]

I bet if smiting weren't diabled I would have a karma of about -30 right now :lol:

Maybe only -10 :wink:

Honestly, I have been dealing with this issue for a long time since I have such admiration for the Romans.

After a long time looking at it, I have to say I completely disagree

With the exception of the Ludii, which were crticized by Seneca, the Romans, on the whole, especially compared with the cultures of the era, were some of the most enlightened and tolerant people of their age. Of course the competition isn't too stiff, it's true, but I think they they get a bum rap, we judge them harder because they are so important to our history, our law, and everything else.

Let's take a classic example, the Roman treatment of Jews. This is one of the great examples used to demonstrate Roman intolerance. It actually demonstrates exactly the opposite. Romans granted jews the right to citizenship and worship all over the empire and even excused them from direct worship of the emperor. It took a lot for the Romans to finally destory the Temple in 70 AD. Likewise the Bar Kochba revolts. Even after that event it was easily within the power of the Romans to enact a 'final solution' ala Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler, etc, but they didn't.

Likewise, christian persecution is used as an example, yet the persecutions were not systematic, but they were periodic, and the exception. It's amazing but true, but often foreigners, minorities and women had access to protection and the rule of law, which is just amazing for that time period.

It's clear it wasn't always applied fairly, it's true, but name another country were values like truth and the rule of law were even considerations at the time. It speaks very well of them I think.

Also slavery was a far different system than it became in the colonial period. Witness the great number of Freedmen, or imperial slaves that were amongst some of the highest ranking bureaucrats in the empire.

This isn't to say that atrocities didn't happen, but Robert is right. Such atrocities were never ideologically insane, like Mao's or Stalin or Hitler's pure vision. They were practical political or rooted to recent events or social contexts. Consider Carthage. Sure they sowed the fields with salt and utterly destroyed a civilization, but that was only after TWO previous wars with the same peoples. If anything it speaks to the Romans pragmatism when speaking of tolerance.

With the exception of the games (which I do think were insane and bloodthirsty) the Romans were not monsters like the Nazis. They commited atrocities, true, but they were reactions to war, resistance, threats, and at most could be considered overreactions and not ideologically motivated purges.

Also remember that they lacked the precision munitions we have. Everyone misquotes General Sherman from the American Civil War. they say he said "War is hell" when what he really said was "War is ALL hell" He wasn't making an anti-war comment, far from it, rather he was saying that war was horrible and extending it, by not committing yourself to total war against a people, could eventually extend the war and lose more lives, not less.

Sherman destroyed the civilian infrastructure of the South and brought the war to an end quicker. It was brutal, but was it an atrocity? Depends on how you look at it.

This was the model of war amongst the Romans. While most tribes had a warrior culture, the Romans fought total war, and so do we. During WWII we bombed Dresden, fire-bombed tokyo and many other things that killed millions, long before we had the atomic bomb. I do consider such acts horrible, but not necessarily immoral (i dunno, perhaps some Germans on the board might see it differently). In both cases it was a theory of total war. Before we could break the German Army, we had to break the will of the German people. I think that by far (the notable exception being the games) Roman atrocities fall into this category. IMHO.

Travis

[Martin Wallgren]

Very True!

We can´t color our view with our 21c morality. A little thing called Humanity was not yet invented in those times. The romans did a lot of nasty things and so have everybody else. I am a Swede, still today people in middle and eastern europe has proverbs about the monstrsety of the Swedish soldiers of old wars (or so I´m told). And Sweden has not been at war for almost 200 years. I bet the Japaneese civilian survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki has a few words to say about Americans. And many in Scotland and Ireland still holds dearly on to old grudges against the English. All cultures has Skelletons in the closet. If it takes Re-enactment or something else to realise this doesn´t matter. The important thing is to aknowlage it and try to learn from history so the past crimes doesn´t get repeted.

My 2 cent.

Martin

[john m roberts]

We tend to condemn Roman brutality as if it were unique and somebody else was nicer. This is an attitude we have inherited from the Victorians who were appalled at Roman crudity (and they were no slauches when it came to whomping on the wogs) while extolling the "gentlemanly" Greeks. They admired the sculpture, drama and architecture while turning a blind eye to the orgies and the massacres. The glory of Periclean Athens was financed by the unspeakably brutal silver mines of Laurium, manned largely by POWs. Romans just did everything on a far bigger scale than anyone else. We must also remember that many of those "enslaved" Gauls shipped to Italy from Caesar's conquests were already slaves when they were captured. Gauls kept very large slave populations and they were part of the loot. The spiky-haired guys in the blue paint represented a very small warrior aristocracy.

We lament the conquest of Judea and people assume that the Romans just marched in and conquered the place. In fact, they were invited in by a Jewish faction who wanted Roman help in exterminating another Jewish faction. After the usual Roman fashion, they stayed and took control of the princely succession.

This was an age when conquest and war were the norm, when you took whatever advantage over other people you could. Things like compassion and mercy were seen as serious character flaws.

"Presentism" is one of the most pernicious historical attitudes, and far too common. Just remember that future generations will probably consider us utter monsters for things we are not even aware that we are doing.

[Goffredo]

First Romans were compared with Nazis, Ceasar with Hitler.
Then they (he) are(is) not compared with Mao!
Make up your mind or stand your position consistently.

Jeff