roman atrocities

[floofthegoof]

Even in earlier times, the Romans despised cruelty.

I guess you mean unwarranted cruelty. Crucifying Spartacus' rebels 9or crucufiction as a capital punishemnt in general) is cruel.

I seem to recall something about Caesar cutting off the hands of Vercingetorix' soldiers after he surrendered. or is that something unhistorical?

I think that goes along with their tribal view of justice. Guilty by association.

That said, their moral ideal was of course often different from their moral practice. Powerful individuals could get away with well..... murder. I read in Appian the story of Antony's wife, who coveted an apartment building adjacent to one that she owned. The owner refused to sell it to her, so she had him murdered, siezed the building by force and tacked his severed head above the building's entry way! Of course, the story is told as an example of the abuses of power that were going on at the time and to describe her wickedness. I must admit it sounds implausible. You can imagine the questions of prospective tenants. "So what's with that guy? Late on his rent?" *nervous laughter*.

As someone living in the 20th century, you wouldn't want people 1000 years from now to judge your morals by the actions of Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot. Looking at it that way, it would not surprise me to find out that a Roman's morals would be more in line with our own than we realize. We had slavery in my country only 150 years ago. I wonder if my morals would be so different from a randomly picked Roman's morals, than it would be from someone randomly picked from 50 years ago. Not everyone liked to watch the slaughter in the games. In my town, there are strip clubs everywhere now, but that doesn't mean we all go there.

[hoplite14gr]

Inhibiton towrds taking life is inate in normal humans I think.
I read that when inducted into the army the Roman recruit was gong through a ceremony of "cleansing" that stated that the blood of Romes enemies would not haunt him and would not stain him. So authorities did understood that raw recruits might had a problem in taking life.
Even the dreaded Spartans declared war on helots so there would be no moral or legal reason againd their killing.
Romas had sometime gladiators to exxecute criminals.
Wanton cruelty must have been always frawned upon.
In our modern "civilised" time there had been penal unists composed of "chesspool" recruits when something "extrordinary" need to be done.
The Romans might have used similar methods to overcome the problem.
Kind regards

[TFLAVIUSAMBIORIX]

all very good points.

I went through all this stuff when I studied psychology, but I can't remember half of it to save my life. It may be possible that one of the mechanisms of defense/sublimation may have been numbed by some of the training given to recruits as well. many modern militaries still do this. Training may be key for roman recruits overcoming their innate objections. they would still be there, but pushed down, I think they would still feel some remorse for any actions, we will never really know though.

[A_Volpe]

So much to cover, so little time (and brain memory)

This really has been a great discsussion, and I'm very glad to see things didn't go completely out of control.

Tarbicus - Thanks for the insight. Indeed, the more "reenacting" I do, the more I appreciate about what soldiers go through, the more I understand how it applies to the Greater Scheme Of Things and how it fits into History as well as Today. It's certainly a very humbling, if not, rewarding experience.

In a strangely related manner, I was a Wildlife care volunteer for several years, and that experience too had an impact on how I see "The World", and seeing how Animals treat Other Animals gives an awful lot of insight into human behavior (*gasp* cause we're animals too!). I'm reminded of an episode of "The Life Of Birds" by Sir David Attenborogh (hope i spelled that right), where he was talking about the Bowerbirds (Ptilonrhynchidae) and how they will construct thier Bowers with incredible artisitic and engineering prowess...Sometimes only to have it vandalized, or utterly destroyed, by other Bowerbirds on purpose...Is it jealousy or oportunity for advantage? Either way, most times out, the Bowerbird will go back to reconstructing the Bower, sometimes after several attacks....I think that has profound implications for us 2-leggers...With War, violence and destruction, we're still capable of compassion, creativity, and survivabilty.

Like I said, we're doing the hard work for the general public. People can see us toil and foil over our armor and fighting tactics and get a glimpse of what life was like back then and how it relates today...And hopefully noone gets hurt at the end of the day. people are going to walk away from the experience with something.

And, now that I try and think more about it, I don't think I've had anyone scold me for portraying a Roman. Sure, I get some heckling ("wot's in yer wallet?" and "I'm Spartacus" and "Oh look, a Roman Knight" and "if the Romans were so great, why are they dead, huh armor-boy?") but it's worth it in the end, and it's water off my back. I've had some people ask "is that the armor during the time of Christ?", which has started some interesting discussion more than nasty ones. (although I did have one kid who proclaimed in public, with pointed finger, "Why Did You Kill Jesus?"...Yeah...And his embarrased mother quickly herding him away)

speaking of which, that other boy who asked "why is the sword sharp / why is it made of metal" - I wasn't asked this myself, another demonstrater was asked and wasn't entirely sure how to answer. They said people originally used [these] to hurt other people, but [by the timeperiod of the demonstration - 1570's AD], they were used for sport-fencing and excersize, and metal was just what they liked to use, being traditional and all. - I think that's as good an answer as one could come up with in a snap.

[richsc]

I think Malthus had it right in his hierarchy of needs
chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/regsys/maslow.html

which fits in with the Hobbesian view of the world (nasty brutish short) unless you can enable the higher points of the pyramid. If you don't get beyond those, you tend to get societies prone to violence to keep what they have.
This is kind of hard to get across at events, though.

[tlclark]

all very good points.

I went through all this stuff when I studied psychology, but I can't remember half of it to save my life. It may be possible that one of the mechanisms of defense/sublimation may have been numbed by some of the training given to recruits as well. many modern militaries still do this. Training may be key for roman recruits overcoming their innate objections. they would still be there, but pushed down, I think they would still feel some remorse for any actions, we will never really know though.

Back on one of the other threads about Roman Fighting sytles, we were arguing about whether discipline or agression were more important in battle.

I mentioned back then that if I wasn't psyched up out of my mind with rage, I would probably piss my pants in fear.

I think a lot of what you are talking about now is related. Now we are not talking about the history of atrocity, but the mechanics of it. There's probably a lot of studies that deal with this.

There's peer pressure, authority pressure, group think, mob mentality, literally dozens of factors that lead people to atrocity. Men are not monsters, but circumstances can make them monsters. Which leads me to this related question. Who's morally responsible for the atrocity? If a centurion is using fear, group identity, nascent adolescent agression to urge his troops onward, who's to blame?

Even at the Nuremburg trials a lot of the Vermacht and SS were excused while the heat fell pretty heavy on the leadership.

What are peoples' opinions?

[Caius Valens]

I must respectfully disagree with this gentlemen beliefs. The Roman Army lived in another time and place. People thought and acted very differntly. We are applying Modern PC to the Roman Army is silly. The Roman army defened civilasation for centurys and brought for its time law and order in countries were tribal raid and counter raid were a way of life. To coin a phrase" Rome is the light". After Rome, centuries of warfare and anchary ensued and engulfed Western Europe where many died. If people died by the actions of Roman Legioniares and Auxillaries and Milites many more were saved by stoping the Hordes of invaders.To sum up this person is wrong in his beliefs and misguided. To compare a Roman Legionare to a SS man is insulting. All they ever did was kill people (the ss) Any how got to go Constaine PS I am angry anyone could be so foolish

[TFLAVIUSAMBIORIX]

had you read the whole thread you would know that these are not actually my views, they are meant to spark contrast, and constructive debate, read the whole thread, there you will find my actual views.

you also should not attack me personally, it is childish and disrespectful.

BTW, there were medics in the SS that never touched a rifle, so to say they only killed people is wrong. I don't see how it is insulting, insulting to who? there are no romans left.

[Robert Vermaat]

Ah, Maslov! That brings back moemories...

Even at the Nuremburg trials a lot of the Vermacht and SS were excused while the heat fell pretty heavy on the leadership.

At the Nuremberg trials, these men were tried according to their own laws, not Uk or US law. If they transgressed against german law, they were guilty. But if they had followed orders in a normal chain of command, ordinary soldiers from the Wehrmacht, Kriegsmarine or SS were rarely found guilty of war crimes.

[Robert Vermaat]

I must respectfully disagree with this gentlemen beliefs. The Roman Army lived in another time and place. People thought and acted very differntly. We are applying Modern PC to the Roman Army is silly. The Roman army defened civilasation for centurys and brought for its time law and order in countries were tribal raid and counter raid were a way of life. To coin a phrase" Rome is the light". After Rome, centuries of warfare and anchary ensued and engulfed Western Europe where many died. If people died by the actions of Roman Legioniares and Auxillaries and Milites many more were saved by stoping the Hordes of invaders.To sum up this person is wrong in his beliefs and misguided. To compare a Roman Legionare to a SS man is insulting. All they ever did was kill people (the ss) Any how got to go Constaine PS I am angry anyone could be so foolish

Hi Constaine (I still don't see your real name in your signature),

I think you're right and not right at the same time.

You're right to say that it 's not possible to compare modern soldiers to Roman soldiers. It's another time and place alright, with very different ways of thinking.

However, your idea of Romans defending cvilization is not a correct picture either. Rome was an imperialist power that conquered and occupied lands that were not theirs. You may say they brought a lot of good stuff (the aquaducts, laws, roads, etc., etc.) but that was hardly by choice of the tribes that were defeated, not was it the prime intention of the Romans. We may call them that - imperialist conquerors. Also, defending the borders from the enemies was hardly defending civilization from barbarians - it's a little less black and white than that I fear.

Also, to compare a Roman to an SS man is by no means automatically insulting, because the SS was not by definition a murderous criminal. No one denies the WW II atrocities by the SS but if you've read the was histories of all 40 or whatever SS divisions you'll realise that a) the SS was no volunteer force only (conscripts were sent there to serve as well), and b) nor were all charged with war crimes. So a comparison is by all means allowed without automatically being an insult. We are, after all, discussing Roman atrocities here, something we all agree on did happen, even by the standards of those times.

PS, when you respectfully disagree you must not conclude that the other person is a fool...

[Tarbicus]

I think it's worth recapping and focusing on this statement from the original post.

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

That's the interesting point that I feel is inflammatory, and possibly put there to cause a lot of upset? I personally would feel quite proud to be a Roman legionary as they tended to build more than destroy through their history, and to say they were akin to the SS (or as good as say it), who tended to destroy more than build, is seriously flawed. Do a body count based on SS members' actions over their very short period of existence, compared to the legions over their far far longer timespan, and proportionalise it against population over their respective years of activity.

No comparison I think. We tend to remember the newsworthy, especially when recorded in history, but forget the dross. However, when the SS came to town there was guaranteed to be very little dross.

[TFLAVIUSAMBIORIX]

tarbicus,
it was not meant to inflame, it was meant to play up a point, which is not actually my real opinion--BTW, I thought we were debating on the new stance now, if you gentlemen would be so kind as to conform to the changes in debate, and the stances thereof.

tarbicus,
yes, I would be proud to serve as a legionary, I would also be proud to serve in the SS, kriegsmarine, luftwaffe, or heer. Just like my relatives were proud of serving in the german military, and my other relatives proud of serving in the U.S. military. All soldiers, with a very few exceptions, should be proud of their service I believe. I know a former SS soldat, a nice guy, didn't understand eugenics, inferiority, or anything, just wanted to serve his country.

Gentlemen,
please debate on my new stance now, it is supposed to be a fluid debate, we are now stuck in this rut of tackling my initial argument with the same arguments.
thanks.
BTW constantine, I am not angry at you, I just wanted to point out that you are not entitled to call me a fool in a respectful rebuttle.

[Caius Valens]

Salve Ambiorix, Constaine here I took the time to look more throughly at your train of thought, while I do not agree with it I wish to say I am sorry for my angry outburst. While I am not a real Legionary I would have been very proud to have served with them. Again my apolgies Cheers Constaine