real expert;653592 said:
[/COLOR]
I referred to myself as the descendant ofthe "Barbarians" because you brought up the Barbarians at the Gate and their predatory nature.
You're probably aware of it, but that was an allusion to Augustine writing as the Vandals surrounded his city. As I already said, I have some of that "Barbarian" blood too.
The thing is in the eyes of the Romans, ALL of their wars were defensive and thus legitimate. Hence they justified their wars either with self-defense, protecting and avenging friends, and punishing wrongs, etc. For example, when exactly did the Persian or Parthian Empire threaten, declare war on or tried to attack and invade Rome when Caesar, Crassus, or Antonius planned a military campaign against them? The truth of the matter is some wars of Rome were rather defensive and others not so much. The more wealthy and powerful the Romans became, the more capable they were of further expanding their Empire. Romans were not satisfied with conquering only land near to them. They realized that land further away might also have riches in them that would make Rome even more wealthy. Once again glory and honor were extremely important in Rome. Hence, to me, it's not entirely convincing that Rome's wars were all defensive and that Rome became accidentally a great Empire by being busy defending itself.
It should be clear from my prior posts that I'm no admirer of war like cultures and the building of empires through force. Of the two of us it is you, I think, who exhibits more admiration for those kinds of cultures. It is, in fact, the extreme value which the steppe people put on warfare and the conquest of other peoples, and the way in which they treated the conquered which I most dislike about their culture. It is far more "Nazi-like" than anything Rome ever did. I would say the same about the Germanic tribes which toppled Rome and the Anglo-Saxons who created an apartheid system in Britain.
Well, there is a controversy around the She-wolf.
"We know that the She-wolf embodies the story of Rome’s founding, but the statue’s origins are not so widely known. Originally, the She-wolf was recognized as an Etruscan statue, meaning that it was made in the early part of the 5th century BC."
https://emarlowe.colgate.domains/arts101/student-posts/the-capitoline-she-wolf-who-am-i-and-where-do-i-come-from/
This specific statue of a She-wolf may well be of Etruscan origin. Nevertheless, a She-wolf suckling Romulus and Remus is definitely a Latin/Roman folklore and as far as I know not an Etruscan myth. Or did I miss something, and Romulus and Remus are Etruscan mythological figures? Furthermore, Mars, the God of war is not just the Greek version of Ares. There is the tendency to deny the Latins/Romans anything of their own- they either got it from the Etruscans or from the Greeks, people say.
I don't get all the emphasis you place on this. The Russians have a bear, the Americans an eagle, the British a lion, and the Germans have always had the black eagle. So what? Is being suckled by a wolf scarier and more ominous? Is it more indicative of being warlike and fierce? Really? Enough of this discussion.
Where did I indicate or allude to that Rome was racist? The Romans certainly believed in their own superiority over basically everybody, they were crystal clear about it in their own written records. Anyway, the Romans were xenophobic rather than outright racist. Plus I literally wrote that is better to be conquered by the Romans than by many other people.
Every country, on some level and to some degree, at least in the past, thinks/thought it's the best. What matters is how that country treats immigrants, or people it conquers, as in the bad old "empire" days.
There is no comparison between being conquered by the steppe people versus being conquered by Rome? Did the Romans kill all the men in Gaul or Britain and take all the women, virtually extinguishing certain local y lines? Could a man conquered by the steppe invaders buy himself out of slavery, become the equal of his conquerors? It's an absurdity. Being conquered by Rome was also better than being conquered by the Lombards and the Anglo-Saxons. As I advised you, you should read their law codes, and compare them to Roman law. That's over and above the fact that the Germanic tribes brought down all the carefully decided legal cases under Roman law and brought back Trial by Combat!!!
Indeed, it was better living as a "Roman" in the Empire than as a "barbarian" beyond the borders, imo. Look up how people lived outside the borders of the empire and compare to life within it. Later, what happened wasn't that people feared being conquered by Rome; they wanted to be let INTO the Empire, fed by it, and protected by it. Rome just couldn't absorb them all, a problem facing European countries today, and the U.S.A. as well. Nor were the tribesmen prepared for life within the Empire, stabling their horses, for God's sake, in the magnificent public buildings, fearing death if they went to the public baths, totally incapable of continuing civilized life because, for starters, they were all illiterate.
Or, think of the suffering which the Jewish people could have avoided had they just done as Jesus advised: "Give unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and to God the things which are God's." Instead, the zealots took over and their travails began. People have made the same mistake over and over again over the centuries and indeed millennia. Revolutionaries never really want to give freedom to everyone; they just want to become the ruling hierarchy, and impose their own rigid rules.
Slavery was indeed the norm in most cultures. However, the scale of slavery in Rome was on another level compared to, for instance, in Germanic societies.
It's believed that 2/3 of the Roman population were slaves.
Btw, slavery in Ancient Rome isn't really bemoaned but mostly the transatlantic slave trade.
Here's a article about slavery in Germanic society.
"Germanic tribes in dealing with their slaves, says that they treated them neither to chain nor to forced labor and killed them rather in a fit of anger' than from inclination toward cruelty."
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/250761
The thing is, that enslaved people no matter where deserve their suffering to be acknowledged. If you ask me these Roman slaves from present-day France and Britain were rightfully bemoaning their enslavement and I feel for them. Even in death, these enslaved unfortunates were shackled and with their iron color around their necks, they couldn't escape their chains untill their last breath.
May they soul rest peace and they run free.
"Roman slaves are unearthed . . . still with their iron collars and shackles in place." One of the slaves was a shackled child.
That figure is absurd, almost as absurd as your quote about German slavery. I'm sure the poor slaves killed in a fit of anger would feel much better about it knowing it wasn't part of some plan, or something.
I've given your posts a lot of time, and due respect as a member of the site, but it's not my job to teach ancient history to people who have never really studied it. Your posts are getting as bad as those of Silesian. Please pick up some volumes by respected historians and archaeologists on the Roman Empire, and Germanic culture of the time as well. As to the latter, please don't mistake the musings of the Roman version of Rousseau when describing the "Noble Savages" for reality; it was to shame his own people into better behavior. It's not enough to present quotes from ancient authors; you have to know the CONTEXT.