roman atrocities

[TFLAVIUSAMBIORIX]

guys, this was meant to spark conversation, opinions, etc.

Goffredo,
to spark discussion it is interesting to shift positions and see how people change, this is not meant to be a full out angry argument like some people have made it out to be, BTW, I stated my position at first in too harsh a manner.

BTW, I must stress, I am not less a brutal person than the romans, nazis, etc. given enough brainwashing as I have said, I would be first up for the benefits of brutality.

I had thought that we could have a healthy back and forth discussion about both sides on this board like we do on the WWII board, but it seems I may have brought out a few emotions in some people, Jasper, if you want you can lock this thread without me protesting.

I have however found that, especially with more modern conflicts, it is better to open the scars to let them bleed out with debate than to just let them fester, and stay unspoken of.

[Theodosius the Great]

slaves came from somewhere you know.......

Travis already refuted this and expressed it far better than I could. But the Romans didn't invent the practice. What civilization hasn't practiced it ?

Besides, many slaves (not freedmen) lived better than ordinary citizens.

BTW, slavery is alive and well in Africa of all places. Even in Europe you have the sex-slave trade.

The main thing I take issue with is this statement :

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

I may agree with this if you are portraying a legion that participated in a particular atrocity.

Otherwise, there we many soldiers who never saw combat and most people never even saw a Roman soldier.

The frequency in occurance of atrocities was low when you look at the entire history of Rome.

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.

That's an anachronistic statement, I'm afraid. Late medieval theologians came up with the term "humans rights" and the Spanish were among the first to put into practice this recognition in the 15th century. I believe this is officially recognized in the UN Charter.

[hansvl]

That's an anachronistic statement, I'm afraid. Late medieval theologians came up with the term "humans rights" and the Spanish were among the first to put into practice this recognition in the 15th century. I believe this is officially recognized in the UN Charter.

Well the Spanish didn't really practiced it during the 16th century when they crushed the rebellion in the south of the Low Countries. We still speak about the Spanish fury.

So every people did atrocities, I think we can agree to that. We all have skeletons in our closets.

Now about assimilation by the Romans. I don't really agree to that. Recently a lot of studies on Romanisation in the North-western provinces of the Roman Empire (Gallia Belgica, Germania Inferior and Superior) showed that it wasn't a Roman induced process, but a process that was initiated by the elite of the local tribes! It didn't stop them in 69 AD to start the (Batavian) revolt led by Civilis.

A fascinating read on this subject is 'From the sword to the plough' by Nico Roymans (ed) from 1996. Also T. Derks's Gods, temples and ritual practices: the transformation of religious ideas and values in Roman Gaul (1998).

Greets,

Hans

[hoplite14gr]

John I gave a karma point for having the guts to admit that whe pressed you would do a nasty thing especially if ordered by an officer.
I think that people (myself included) do not want to admit how near the beast will go when pressed.

Atrocities even calculated planned ones happened from the dawn of time.
The nastiest think about them is that they work.
It is disgusting but whole nations and civilazations owe their exostance to them! It is repulsive but it is true.

And yes I agree that what is left unspoken tends to become gangrane.
I agree with Robert that today we have all this "anti atrocity" morals and organizations but nastiness happens because unfortunatelly is an effective political tool. I am scared of the thought that they may exist to appease out consince!

I belive that ancients had more the concept of revenge rather than "warcrime".

Also humans like all mamals have the sence of the pack (us vs them).

Kind regards

[tlclark]

"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.

Brittney Spears, American Idol, Bell-bottom pants, tofu turkey, ballroom dancing, british cooking, american politics... Good Lord! The list is endless!! :wink:

[Theodosius the Great]

We still speak about the Spanish fury

But that's in the context of revolt and rebellion as opposed to conquest which is what I thought we were talking about.

Even so, no one is consistent. Although some have better track records than others.

The point is that the concept of "Human Rights" did not originate with Liberalism or the so-called Enlightenment.

I belive that ancients had more the concept of revenge rather than "warcrime".

Exactly what I think Vortigern was saying. "Warcrime" or "atrocity" is an anachronistic concept when speaking about the Ancients.

[tlclark]

I had thought that we could have a healthy back and forth discussion about both sides on this board like we do on the WWII board, but it seems I may have brought out a few emotions in some people, Jasper, if you want you can lock this thread without me protesting.

Heavens no! Jasper, please don't.

Just for the record, I am not offended and I think the topic has been great even though it's obvious I strongly disagree with John. I just happen to like heated discussions and so far I think everyone has been very civil.

If it gets uncivil then maybe we should take it to the arena, so to speak, but I enjoy this line of discussion.

Travis

[Carlton Bach]

I guess such discussions can certainly be couched in more diplomatic terms :wink:

At any rate, I don't think that the Romans were a particularly nasty or particularly cruel people. It is simply a matter of selective perception, still a good friend to modern media psychology. Any empire, any military conquest or war of 'liberation' any form of rule generates atrocities. It is an unfortunate historical universal. Just because we like to think of certain historical epochs in certain lights we should not allow that to blind us to these realities. It was not the Romans but the Athenians who once castrated every male inhabitant of an enemy city, after all, not the Romans but the French who allowed their native auxiliaries to spare the women and girls in massacred villages for rape. In the world the Romans knew, death and enslavement were part of warfare. A defeated Rome would have had to expect the same from its enemies (something that very few people talk about). What made the Romans special was not so much that they were particularly cruel (the refined cruelty some other people came up with is hard to match, anyway) but that they were particularly good at war, and fond of it. That is certainly not a pleasant characteristic, but a far cry from the almost demonic image some authors have of the Romans.

The Roman Empire, no bones about it, was a cruel and exploitative system. That was the definition of 'empire' in those days. There were times when it was significantly worse than many, but even in those days it was not exceptional. Exploitation, oppression and extortion were tools of government, and I doubt it made much difference to anyone concerned whether it was the Roman proconsul, the Seleucid governor or the Hasmonaean warlord doing the plundering. We tend to give some peoples a 'free pass' because they are cast as heroes, but the Samaritans suffered under the Maccabees and the Decapolitasns under the Jewish insurrecteion just as much (and more inexorably, as they were persecuted for what they *were*, not what they *did*) as the Jews did under Rome.

And you hae to consider that there was always another side to it. For all the horrors that Rome inflicted on the world, it gave its Empire stability, unity, and prosperity. It is hard to overstress the cost of war in the ancient world, and the Pax Romana was perhaps the most prosperous age in Western history until the advent of the late middle ages. Similarly, many of the other threats to life and property that had plagued the ancient world were reduced under Roman rule. PIracy and brigandage, tyranny and ethnic persecution were at a remarkable low. Of course, when they occurred, they could be carried out on a mind-boggling scale. But I would still uphold that, of all the bad deals that were around at the time, the Roman Empire was the best. Not because it was a good Empire - when was there ever such a thing? - but because, in pursuing its own goals it furthered those of many others. The Germanic tribesmen may have been free, the Jewish rebels spiritual and noble, the Hellenistic kingdoms refined, but if I had to contemplate life in any of these places I would prefer Rome. For one thing, they didn't tell you what to be, just what to do (In the words of a German author: "If the Romans wanted people to wear shoes, they didn't order them to do so. That's German thinking. They just scattered enough pointy rocks.")

But this seems to be a general theme among reenactors - few of us liie to fasce up top the fact that especially military organisations were guilty of awful things. How many medieval knights and sergwents would contemplate the horrors of the Baltic 'reyse' (full-board cruises including a fun game of chasing pagan tribesmen to death with hounds or burning them alive), how many Victorian regiments think of the Cawnpore revenge or Celtic tribesmen of the burning of Londinium? Not to mention how few people today are aware what foundations our political and economic system stands on. Singling out the Romans is simply unfair.

[TFLAVIUSAMBIORIX]

yeah, thats what I think.

BTW, it should be very obvious that the post is not necessarily my opinion, it was meant to spark thought, it was meant to do exactly what it has done-cause us to reflect on the fact that humans as a collective group are not angels, if you guys dont mind, lets turn it around now.

now I state the exact opposite thing than my original post-- okay, go, good arguments, I expect you guys to counter me with as good of arguments as you have against my previous 'opinion'.

I would like you to counter my now oppsite:
The romans were a good people, and although they comitted some acts that we see as horrifying atrocities, they were largely justified by the situation at hand.

see, it does make you think doesnt it?

[hoplite14gr]

Well I´ll br blant.!
If I was a Roman I would think that everything not Roman was not gould renough. It is natural thaty we are masters of the world and we "uphold civilization". If I was aRoamn ally I would say thank god they do n´t loot us (at least not yet) and I would be happy because they offered me the chance to loot their enemies.

If I was not Roman I would curse the gods for not having the chance to whack them! If I was a roman slave I would join Spartakus or the Parthians or the Skythians or the auxilia!!!
If I was aParthian I would think that the Romans are full of self importance and in need of some Charrae from time to time.

Kind regards

[tlclark]

What made the Romans special was not so much that they were particularly cruel (the refined cruelty some other people came up with is hard to match, anyway) but that they were particularly good at war, and fond of it.

Actually, I disagree on both counts. I think that for the most part Romans were not cruel, but when it came to the games, there is just no way around it, they had a peculiar bloodlust unmatched except for the Aztecs.

As far as being war-like, I think that is also inaccurate. I think if you weighed the balance of pro-peace statements against pro-war statements in Latin literature you'd be amazed. The georgics are as far removed from war as possible.

I think it would be more accurate to say that they were very competent at war, and recognized its' uses, and didn't shy away from it, but when Pliny compares the arts of the Greeks to the arts of the Romans, he doesn't say the Roman arts are "war" but statecraft, of which war is an essential part.

Scipio, Cincinatus, and many others retired from war and enjoyed the pastoral life and I doubt they ever looked back.

Other than that qualifier I think your post is dead on, especially this observation

For all the horrors that Rome inflicted on the world, it gave its Empire stability, unity, and prosperity. It is hard to overstress the cost of war in the ancient world, and the Pax Romana was perhaps the most prosperous age in Western history until the advent of the late middle ages. Similarly, many of the other threats to life and property that had plagued the ancient world were reduced under Roman rule. PIracy and brigandage, tyranny and ethnic persecution were at a remarkable low.

This was the Roman goal, not necessarily atrocity, but they were not above atrocity when it served the first goal of state and empire building.

Travis

[TFLAVIUSAMBIORIX]

very good, this backs up my 'new' position.

the romans were somewhat justified by not knowing better certainly.

[Nathan Ross]

aka., John Shook

aka. Devil's Advocate, it would appear! Still, always good to see both sides of the argument...

It's interesting that most of what we know about Roman atrocities is communicated to us by the Romans themselves - that stirring speech by 'Calgacus' on the eve of Mons Graupius ('they make a desert and they call it peace' - suggesting a campaign of devastation by Agricola's forces) was penned by the Roman Tacitus! I believe there was an attempt by Cato to indict Caesar for 'war crimes' after his slaughter of the Tencteri during the Gallic wars, although principally for his breaking of treaties IIRC - so the Romans were perfectly capable of self-critique in these matters. But for every Seneca inveighing against the Roman Games (mainly because of the wanton pleasures they afforded the hoi polloi!) there's a Cicero applauding the same games for promoting the martial virtues by innuring the people to the sight of bloodshed... The Romans, like the British of the 18th and 19th centuries, were often the harshest critics of their own foreign affairs - though perhaps because their opponents were voiceless, illiterate or dead...

There is a tendency, I think, these days to be relativistic about the Nazi genocide of the Jews - comparing it with similarly vast slaughters by Stalin, Pol Pot etc. I do believe, however, that this particular event - being the mass industrialised extermination of a 'race' that posed no threat to the German state, conducted by the full military and civil system of that state and directly counter to prevailing morality of the day, was a crime unparalleled in the history of human iniquity and deserves to be regarded as such. Nothing the Romans did can be rightly compared with it, and I do not doubt that any time-travelling Roman observer would have been just as shocked and horrified by it as we are (although for different reasons, quite possibly - all that wasteage of manpower for a start...)

On a lighter note:

tlclark wrote:

Brittney Spears, American Idol, Bell-bottom pants, tofu turkey

Tofu turkey? You what?

...british cooking...

Oi! :evil:

[TFLAVIUSAMBIORIX]

yes, I do play devil's advocate, it helps when one can play both sides of the line. I think we would have less war and terrorism if we could all do it more often.


keep debating on the new stance taken by me above, but I bet there is somebody wanting to see what I really think, so here it is:


we cant compare atrocities simply because we should not play down any atrocity, wether it be one or 20 million people, or whether it be in war, or peace, an atrocity for whatever reason cannot be justified on any grounds.

but I must ask: Sed qui sine peccato est?

I think nobody will say "I am" on this count, I certainly am not.........

[richsc]

It's relevant too that in our western, 21st century view of what to expect from life we all expect to live to 80, disease is mostly controllable, child mortality is small, food is easy to come by, you don't get killed for the shirt/tunic on your back, and we are not subject to arbitrary rulers. In the Hobbesian view, life is "nasty, brutish and short" and anything that's better than that is a real win.

If you were dropped in the first century you would probably have a hard time surviving 24 hours, no matter where you were. The whole world was not of a 21st century morality, and things were pretty much equal all over. Rome at least introduced the rule of law over vast lands and cultures, and that improvement is hard to understand today.

When I talk to visitors, I never leave out how nasty the world was back then. The average kid has more clothes today than the rich did back then, and there was always someone looking to take what you had unless you had strong backers. What the point is, to help them understand what civilization means when you don't have it, where what they have came from, and what it takes to keep it.

And if you dont' think there are folks out there today who would take the opportunity to grab whatever you have and leave you in the ditch, just be thankful for those laws that originated with the Romans.