Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 75

Thread: I, Caesar: The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire (1997)

  1. #1
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    5,743

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    3 members found this post helpful.

    I, Caesar: The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire (1997)



    I remember seeing this documentary on TV a long time ago. This is the first episode, however I didn't know there were five more. I am watching them on Amazon Prime.

    I like these older documentaries, they have a certain panache to them.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Salento's Avatar
    Join Date
    30-05-17
    Posts
    5,005

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - SK1480
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H12a

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    2 members found this post helpful.
    I have the entire collection of Rise and fall of an Empire :)


  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    208


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Belgian history starts with Julius Caesar. He was a very ambitious man but also a mass murderer.
    I don't know how much is true of what he had written in De bello Gallico, but he was boasting how many tribes he beated and murdered.
    The Italians loved his cruel story. It made him very popular.
    It was a war he had initiated himself. He only needed an excuse, the movement of the Helvetii.
    It was all planned. He didn't conquer Gaul for the sake of Rome, but for his own glory.
    Millions died for his glory, not only in Gaul.
    From then on Rome was governed by ambitious men who tried to keep the mass happy and ignorant with panem et circenses.

  4. #4
    Satyavrata Maciamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-07-02
    Location
    Lothier
    Posts
    9,552


    Ethnic group
    Italo-celto-germanic
    Country: Belgium - Brussels



    1 members found this post helpful.
    I haven't seen the 1997 documentary about Julius Caesar.

    The BBC made a documentary call Ancient Rome: Rise and Fall of an Empire in 2006 (6 episodes).



    It was emulated by the History Channel in 2008 (the one Salento mentioned above) in 13 episodes.



    Also noteworthy is Mary Beard's Ultimate Rome: Empire Without Limit and Meet the Romans.



    My book selection---Follow me on Facebook and Twitter --- My profile on Academia.edu and on ResearchGate ----Check Wa-pedia's Japan Guide
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?", Winston Churchill.

  5. #5
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    5,743

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur 2 View Post
    Belgian history starts with Julius Caesar. He was a very ambitious man but also a mass murderer.
    I don't know how much is true of what he had written in De bello Gallico, but he was boasting how many tribes he beated and murdered.
    The Italians loved his cruel story. It made him very popular.
    It was a war he had initiated himself. He only needed an excuse, the movement of the Helvetii.
    It was all planned. He didn't conquer Gaul for the sake of Rome, but for his own glory.
    Millions died for his glory, not only in Gaul.
    From then on Rome was governed by ambitious men who tried to keep the mass happy and ignorant with panem et circenses.
    It is the same reason why people admire Alexander the Great, or Genghis Khan, or Andrew Jackson, or Napoleon, or the Indo-Europeans, or the Vikings, or Action movies, or heavy metal, or wealthy and powerful captains of industry, or sports teams, and fighters, so on and so on.

  6. #6
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    5,743

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    I haven't seen the 1997 documentary about Julius Caesar.

    The BBC made a documentary call Ancient Rome: Rise and Fall of an Empire in 2006 (6 episodes).



    It was emulated by the History Channel in 2008 (the one Salento mentioned above) in 13 episodes.



    Also noteworthy is Mary Beard's Ultimate Rome: Empire Without Limit and Meet the Romans.



    Thanks for the links Maciamo!

  7. #7
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    5,743

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salento View Post
    I have the entire collection of Rise and fall of an Empire :)

    Nice, I should pick it up for my collection.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    208


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    It is the same reason why people admire Alexander the Great, or Genghis Khan, or Andrew Jackson, or Napoleon, or the Indo-Europeans, or the Vikings, or Action movies, or heavy metal, or wealthy and powerful captains of industry, or sports teams, and fighters, so on and so on.
    yes, that's correct
    just putting it in another perspective
    you can look at it from different angles

  9. #9
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    5,743

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur 2 View Post
    yes, that's correct
    just putting it in another perspective
    you can look at it from different angles
    I look at it this way, in more recent history, the 1700s, the French had sacked and looted my mother's village. However, I don't hold any ill-will towards the French. In fact, I am looking forward to the day I can visit Paris.


    The Catholic Church sent troops to crush an independence uprising in my Father's town during that time, and in the process executed many of the people there. While I am not really much of a practicing catholic, (in fact, I am an agnostic/more leaning towards atheist, really), my grips with the church are for different reasons. More for their suppression of science, hypocrisy, corruption, and greed. Nevertheless, we turn to them for weddings, baptisms, funerals, etcs.


    In the past, the United States was hostile towards Italian immigrants. Nevertheless, I consider myself to be patriotic, and proud to have been born here.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    26-01-09
    Posts
    696

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z36

    Country: UK - Scotland



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur 2 View Post
    Belgian history starts with Julius Caesar. He was a very ambitious man but also a mass murderer.
    I don't know how much is true of what he had written in De bello Gallico, but he was boasting how many tribes he beated and murdered.
    The Italians loved his cruel story. It made him very popular.
    It was a war he had initiated himself. He only needed an excuse, the movement of the Helvetii.
    It was all planned. He didn't conquer Gaul for the sake of Rome, but for his own glory.
    Millions died for his glory, not only in Gaul.
    From then on Rome was governed by ambitious men who tried to keep the mass happy and ignorant with panem et circenses.
    I wonder if Caesar's assassination actually saved his military reputation?
    He had planned to attack the Parthians, who had already defeated Crassus and Mark Antony.

  11. #11
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,459


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    It is the same reason why people admire Alexander the Great, or Genghis Khan, or Andrew Jackson, or Napoleon, or the Indo-Europeans, or the Vikings, or Action movies, or heavy metal, or wealthy and powerful captains of industry, or sports teams, and fighters, so on and so on.
    My compliments. You rose right above the ethnic baiting and presented the reality.

    I think I might have been more direct. When I get smacked I hit back twice as hard. I'm afraid I left the teachings of Christ behind a long time ago.

    "After the Berlin Conference of 1884 the 905,000 square miles of the Belgian Congo [now the Democratic Republic of the Congo ] became the personal property of King Leopold II of Belgium. (Their governing body thought it wasn't worth the money and effort, much like the Romans didn't think going further north was worth it.)

    His genocidal exploitation of the territory, particularly the rubber trade, caused many deaths and much suffering. Murder and mutilation were common.

    Failure to meet the rubber collection quotas was punishable by death. The Force Publique were required to provide a hand of their victims as proof when they had shot and killed someone, as it was believed that they would otherwise use the munitions for hunting food.As a consequence, the rubber quotas were in part paid off in chopped-off hands. Sometimes the hands were collected by the soldiers of the Force Publique, sometimes by the villages themselves. There were even small wars where villages attacked neighboring villages to gather hands, since their rubber quotas were too unrealistic to fill.


    There are stories of parents being forced to watch as the hands of feet of their young children were hacked as punishment for parents not meeting their rubber quota.


    Under the control of Leopold II of Belgium numerous crimes against humanity were committed upon the indigenous Africans of Central Africa. (And I don't think they were all foreign mercenaries carrying out these policies.)

    The Germans were worse.

    The Herero and Namaqua Genocide in German South-West Africa (present-day Namibia) occurred between 1904 and 1907. Eighty percent of the Herero population and 50 percent of the Nama population were killed in a brutal scorched earth campaign led by German General Lothar von Trotha. Between 24,000 and 100,000 Herero perished along with 10,000 Nama.


    A copy of Trotha’s Extermination Order survives in the Botswana National Archives. The order states “every Herero, with or without a gun, with or without cattle, will be shot.

    I will no longer accept women or children, I will drive them back to their people [to die in the desert] or let them be shot at.” Olusoga and Erichsen write: “It is an almost unique document: an explicit, written declaration of intent to commit genocide”.

    These mass killings were named as the first example of a 20th-century genocide in the 1985 Whitaker Report, commissioned but never adopted by the now defunct United Nations subcommittee ECOSOC.

    https://africanquarters.com/forgotte...4%20and%201907.

    I wonder how many Belgian nationals marched in the streets in protest against this barbarity in the late 19th and early 20th century? Some how, though, people living 2,000 years ago were supposed to be more WOKE and totally against conquering other countries???

    Is it somehow different because these were black people?

    At least once the Belgic tribes were subdued they could become Roman citizens and all the benefits of civilization were theirs.

    Something tells me that isn't how the the Belgians treated the indigenous people of the Congo even after the national government took control.

    People living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.




    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  12. #12
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    5,743

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    My compliments. You rose right above the ethnic baiting and presented the reality.

    I think I might have been more direct. When I get smacked I hit back twice as hard. I'm afraid I left the teachings of Christ behind a long time ago.

    "After the Berlin Conference of 1884 the 905,000 square miles of the Belgian Congo [now the Democratic Republic of the Congo ] became the personal property of King Leopold II of Belgium. (Their governing body thought it wasn't worth the money and effort, much like the Romans didn't think going further north was worth it.)

    His genocidal exploitation of the territory, particularly the rubber trade, caused many deaths and much suffering. Murder and mutilation were common.
    Failure to meet the rubber collection quotas was punishable by death. The Force Publique were required to provide a hand of their victims as proof when they had shot and killed someone, as it was believed that they would otherwise use the munitions for hunting food.As a consequence, the rubber quotas were in part paid off in chopped-off hands. Sometimes the hands were collected by the soldiers of the Force Publique, sometimes by the villages themselves. There were even small wars where villages attacked neighboring villages to gather hands, since their rubber quotas were too unrealistic to fill.
    There are stories of parents being forced to watch as the hands of feet of their young children were hacked as punishment for parents not meeting their rubber quota.
    Under the control of Leopold II of Belgium numerous crimes against humanity were committed upon the indigenous Africans of Central Africa.

    The Germans were worse.

    The Herero and Namaqua Genocide in German South-West Africa (present-day Namibia) occurred between 1904 and 1907. Eighty percent of the Herero population and 50 percent of the Nama population were killed in a brutal scorched earth campaign led by German General Lothar von Trotha. Between 24,000 and 100,000 Herero perished along with 10,000 Nama.


    A copy of Trotha’s Extermination Order survives in the Botswana National Archives. The order states “every Herero, with or without a gun, with or without cattle, will be shot.
    I will no longer accept women or children, I will drive them back to their people [to die in the desert] or let them be shot at.” Olusoga and Erichsen write: “It is an almost unique document: an explicit, written declaration of intent to commit genocide”.
    These mass killings were named as the first example of a 20th-century genocide in the 1985 Whitaker Report, commissioned but never adopted by the now defunct United Nations subcommittee ECOSOC.

    https://africanquarters.com/forgotte...4%20and%201907.

    I wonder how many Belgian nationals marched in the streets in protest against this barbarity in the late 19th and early 20th century?

    Was it somehow different because these were black people?

    At least once the Belgic tribes were subdued they could become Roman citizens and get all the benefits of civilization were theirs.

    Something tells me that isn't how the the Belgians treated the indigenous people of the Congo even after the national government took control.

    People living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.


    @Vallicanus,

    True, but Giulio Cesare was neither Crassus nor Marc Anthony, who didn't do so well against Augustus, who wasn't the General his father was. (Adopted son...actually great nephew)


    Thanks Angela,

    Indeed, it is also why I strongly dislike the woke ideology. All people have a dark side to their history, and I find it annoying that victimology has infected society to such a degree.

    I have always adored the Roman Empire, since I was a child. I get annoyed when people try to minimize or unjustly vilify it. All of the great powers that have preceded it, have tried to emulate it for a reason. Because the contributions are undeniable.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    525


    Country: Austria




    The Germans were worse.

    The Herero and Namaqua Genocide in German South-West Africa (present-day Namibia) occurred between 1904 and 1907. Eighty percent of the Herero population and 50 percent of the Nama population were killed in a brutal scorched earth campaign led by German General Lothar von Trotha. Between 24,000 and 100,000 Herero perished along with 10,000 Nama.
    I don't think the situation in Belgian Congo and South West Africa were directly comparable, because in one case it was the slave like labour, profit orientation, corruption and brutality of all groups associated. Including the locals which sometimes just abused a system and the upper colonial ranks just looked away or were not able to control it. Whereas in the later case of South West Africa, it was a brutal guerilla war. The Germans simply cut off the rebels from water and food, since they were not able to control them otherwise in the huge, hostile terrain. The rebels started with extremely brutal acts against the local Europeans, men, women and children, truly horrible acts, which incited brutality on both sides naturally. So what they did was not profit oriented, it was not simply brutal and numb, it was the reaction to a specific situation. That way they could safe their own lifes, shorten the war and pacify the region. Guerilla wars of that kind, especially if they start like that, with the extremely inhumane and most brutal acts against the local Europeans, are always nasty, that's just as it is. Such wars can be led differently, but only if you want to lose more of your own civilians, soldiers and probably the whole war. it was not a deliberate genocidal act, because otherwise these tribes would no longer exist. We now have this attitude of "the civilised side" is always wrong, even if it just retaliates, whereas the "suppressed" are always right, even if they are more brutal in their methods (Marxist interpretation of reality).

    The Herero started their attacks without provocation, in a situation in which the local civilian European settlers were completely unprotected. You can read up about it in the Wikipedia article:
    The Herero revolted in early 1904, killing between 123 and 150 German settlers, as well as seven Boers and three women
    A Herero warrior interviewed by German authorities in 1895 had described his people's traditional way of dealing with suspected cattle rustlers, a treatment which, during the uprising, was regularly extended to German soldiers and civilians, "We came across a few Khoisan whom of course we killed. I myself helped to kill one of them. First we cut off his ears, saying, 'You will never hear Herero cattle lowing.' Then we cut off his nose, saying, 'Never again shall you smell Herero cattle.' And then we cut off his lips, saying, 'You shall never again taste Herero cattle.' And finally we cut his throat."[49]

    According to Robert Gaudi, "Leutwein knew that the wrath of the German Empire was about to fall on them and hoped to soften the blow. He sent desperate messages to Chief Samuel Maherero in hopes of negotiating an end to the war. In this, Leutwein acted on his own, heedless of the prevailing mood in Germany, which called for bloody revenge."[50]

    The Hereros, however, were emboldened by their success and had come to believe that, "the Germans were too cowardly to fight in the open," and rejected Leutwein's offers of peace
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero...maqua_genocide

    So the whole story had two aspects: Military necessity and retaliation. Its not like the Germans were more brutal than the locals, not at all. The many men, even those which killed and tortured themselves, which could be interviewed afterwards, speak for themselves and the will of the Germans for a true "genocide".

    Looking at what Caesar did in his campaign, he is more comparable to what the Germans did in Africa, because he too oftentimes offered friendly terms at first, and only when leaders and tribes betrayed him or acted very gruesome against his own people, he changed the pace and started to eliminate the resistance. Like in one case, he offered one tribe peace the first time, then they rebelled, but were subdued, and again got a favourable peace. But the third time, when they massacred the local Romans in a most brutal way and were stubborn, until they had no choice but to capitulate a third time, after Caeasr forces lost many men, material and time, they were all slaughtered or sold into slavery as a whole, to make an example of it for all of Gallia. One could question what he did, but at least going by the sources, that seems to be a reasonable approach.
    That's also why some Gallic tribes even profited from the Roman conquest, while others were practically annihilated, sometimes, or even most of the time, after having breaking off and rebelling against the Romans the 2nd, 3rd or even 4th time.

    Of course one could question the presence of colonial or any conquering force in the first place, but that's not the point, because all people did that at different times and circumstances. Its about how you treat subdued people "if they behave" and how you treat them "if they don't" and you simply have to protect your own soldiers and civilians. Like in various uprisings, also against the Romans, there were most brutal acts against Romans, soldiers and civilians. One prominent example is Boudiccas rebellion, which tortured and mutiliated tens of thousands of Roman men, women and children to death.

    For me it makes a big difference, probably the biggest, talking about humanity and decency, whether you just kill enemies, or torture them to death in the most gruesome ways and let them suffer for a prolonged period of time, probably even with a sadistic pleasure. Men like Casear could be brutal and goal-oriented, but they were rarely if ever gruesome and sadistic. Which I think is a good quality, especially in his time, in the social and moral context he lived in.

  14. #14
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,459


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    Thanks Angela,

    Indeed, it is also why I strongly dislike the woke ideology. All people have a dark side to their history, and I find it annoying that victimology has infected society to such a degree.

    I have always adored the Roman Empire, since I was a child. I get annoyed when people try to minimize or unjustly vilify it. All of the great powers that have preceded it, have tried to emulate it for a reason. Because the contributions are undeniable.
    Indeed, as Razib Khan succinctly put it in his substack piece (and he certainly isn't Italian), the Romans came, saw, and left nothing behind in other countries in Europe...except for Western Civilization.

    There's a reason that English schoolboys at private schools had to take at least Latin, if not both Latin and Greek up until the present day, and had to translate every word of Caesar's writings: they're the blueprint for how to create a lasting Empire. No one else has managed it, because no one else knew how to co-opt the loyalties of conquered peoples or had any wish to do so. They wanted every conquered person to either be a slave or to remain forever second class citizens.

    To be clear: I don't believe in conquering other countries. I wish it were a thing of the past, but I have a feeling it isn't, and I have a feeling the treatment of the conquered in the future will be very different indeed. Should it ever come about, which I sincerely hope it never will, I can't see all Americans, should it be a Sino-American war and America losing, being made honorary Chinese citizens and getting equal representation in their governing bodies. :) Hell, look at the poor Uighers, whom everyone is too afraid of China to defend.

  15. #15
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    5,743

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Indeed, as Razib Khan succinctly put it in his substack piece (and he certainly isn't Italian), the Romans came, saw, and left nothing behind in other countries in Europe...except for Western Civilization.

    There's a reason that English schoolboys at private schools had to take at least Latin, if not both Latin and Greek up until the present day, and had to translate every word of Caesar's writings: they're the blueprint for how to create a lasting Empire. No one else has managed it, because no one else knew how to co-opt the loyalties of conquered peoples or had any wish to do so. They wanted every conquered person to either be a slave or to remain forever second class citizens.

    To be clear: I don't believe in conquering other countries. I wish it were a thing of the past, but I have a feeling it isn't, and I have a feeling the treatment of the conquered in the future will be very different indeed. Should it ever come about, which I sincerely hope it never will, I can't see all Americans, should it be a Sino-American war and America losing, being made honorary Chinese citizens and getting equal representation in their governing bodies. :) Hell, look at the poor Uighers, whom everyone is too afraid of China to defend.
    Part of the reason why I feel an affinity for the United States is also that it is the spiritual successor of the Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece. At least I hope it remains as such, and not twisted into a shadow of it's former-self, given the social crisis we face today.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    525


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    To be clear: I don't believe in conquering other countries. I wish it were a thing of the past, but I have a feeling it isn't, and I have a feeling the treatment of the conquered in the future will be very different indeed. Should it ever come about, which I sincerely hope it never will, I can't see all Americans, should it be a Sino-American war and America losing, being made honorary Chinese citizens and getting equal representation in their governing bodies. :) Hell, look at the poor Uighers, whom everyone is too afraid of China to defend.
    The Uighurs were even privileged in the past, were allowed to get more children and a good representation in the political organisation of the province and state. However, it was expected of them to assimilate and, on the long run, just embrace, generally speaking, the national Chinese identity.
    The problems came about when, exactly at the time of beginning ethnic Uighur resistance to full scale assimilation, began an infiltration of the Islamic part of this resistance by foreign Salafists. Like local Uighurs said, it is not in their local, ethnic tradition that women being fully covered in black scarves, or that the interpretation of Islam being that radical. But right in the ethnic conflict, the Islamist indoctrination through foreign agents started. The result were, again, most brutal attacks against Chinese civilians, which are just completely unacceptable for any nation caring for its own people. What followed was an escalation on both sides, and contrary to some weaker states, the Chinese state didn't give in, in the face of radical Islamism, but escalated itself. That's a different strategy from Russia, in which Putin allied up with local Islamists of the somewhat more moderate kind to just execute indirect rule in what I may call a fragile peace with an expiration date. China is strong enough and thinks on the long term, so they don't accept something like that but work for a lasting solution to the Islamist problem. Whether they succeed or not, will be interesting to watch.
    But you have to consider that, just like in other areas of the world, there is no good way to negotiate or make peace with hardcore Islamists, nowhere. What others tried, it didn't work out, nowhere. Religious extremism is a problem for any kind of modern state and society and the Islamic state in Syria & Iraq just showed the world what kind of "humanism" they practise. Tibetans were a special case, they could have been left alone, because of their peaceful and isolated way of doing things, even if it was a theocratic-autocratic, most conservative, in a negative way, state. But Islamism is different, as it is more aggressive and expansive. Like Russia even gave Chechens their Islamic state, but they just kept attacking the neighbouring provinces, using that state as a base. That says a lot about how things would turn out, if China gets weak and would break apart, because it would suffer a worse fate than Russia with the break up of the Soviet Union, I'd guess. And constant terrorism and attacks from Islamists in the Uighur provinces are simply no option for the current leadership.

  17. #17
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    4,971

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    Thanks Angela,

    Indeed, it is also why I strongly dislike the woke ideology. All people have a dark side to their history, and I find it annoying that victimology has infected society to such a degree.

    I have always adored the Roman Empire, since I was a child. I get annoyed when people try to minimize or unjustly vilify it. All of the great powers that have preceded it, have tried to emulate it for a reason. Because the contributions are undeniable.

    Surely for you I'm a 'woke' (and leftish) man. I never admired "great" figures and "great" states too much. I prefer people like Gandhi, personally.
    I don't like more what you call victimology, because too often, the victims are only the loosers of a cruel game which they would have liked to be the winners. I think the famous "memory duty" is valuable for the whole humanity (or inhumanity?). But too much "memory duty" becomes quickly lost of time, I prefer new ways to built future in a more "fairplay" manner; it's my point.
    It isn't without link with what I call the "Hypra-sionism" question of today in Palestine. Past is past, everyone his responsability, but this principle ought not to obliterate future in the region. Someones reproach to others the fact they are trying to come back to recent past but they forget they refer themselves (sionists) to a very far past without value for a lot of others; whoever they are. And thinking all this is in part the result of foreign selfproclamed" great democratic" states action...

  18. #18
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    5,743

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by MOESAN View Post
    Surely for you I'm a 'woke' (and leftish) man. I never admired "great" figures and "great" states too much. I prefer people like Gandhi, personally.
    I don't like more what you call victimology, because too often, the victims are only the loosers of a cruel game which they would have liked to be the winners. I think the famous "memory duty" is valuable for the whole humanity (or inhumanity?). But too much "memory duty" becomes quickly lost of time, I prefer new ways to built future in a more "fairplay" manner; it's my point.
    It isn't without link with what I call the "Hypra-sionism" question of today in Palestine. Past is past, everyone his responsability, but this principle ought not to obliterate future in the region. Someones reproach to others the fact they are trying to come back to recent past but they forget they refer themselves (sionists) to a very far past without value for a lot of others; whoever they are. And thinking all this is in part the result of foreign selfproclamed" great democratic" states action...
    Moesan, being "woke" and being left wing can be exclusive from one another. I do not think you are woke, it is not one in the same as being leftist.

  19. #19
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    5,743

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    https://nypost.com/2021/02/16/nyc-pu...eir-whiteness/

    This is partly what woke-ism is about:




  20. #20
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    5,743

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    This is another manifestation of woke-ness,

    Here we have a classics professor that wants to stop universities from teaching about Ancient Greece, and Rome. Because he thinks it is a part of white supremacy, etc:

    https://theweek.com/articles/965573/cancel-classics

    Again, this is what woke-ness is, it is essentially neo-maoism, they want to erase the past, and rebuild it into something else.
    Last edited by Jovialis; 20-06-21 at 02:38.

  21. #21
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,459


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    3 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    I don't think the situation in Belgian Congo and South West Africa were directly comparable, because in one case it was the slave like labour, profit orientation, corruption and brutality of all groups associated. Including the locals which sometimes just abused a system and the upper colonial ranks just looked away or were not able to control it. Whereas in the later case of South West Africa, it was a brutal guerilla war. The Germans simply cut off the rebels from water and food, since they were not able to control them otherwise in the huge, hostile terrain. The rebels started with extremely brutal acts against the local Europeans, men, women and children, truly horrible acts, which incited brutality on both sides naturally. So what they did was not profit oriented, it was not simply brutal and numb, it was the reaction to a specific situation. That way they could safe their own lifes, shorten the war and pacify the region. Guerilla wars of that kind, especially if they start like that, with the extremely inhumane and most brutal acts against the local Europeans, are always nasty, that's just as it is. Such wars can be led differently, but only if you want to lose more of your own civilians, soldiers and probably the whole war. it was not a deliberate genocidal act, because otherwise these tribes would no longer exist. We now have this attitude of "the civilised side" is always wrong, even if it just retaliates, whereas the "suppressed" are always right, even if they are more brutal in their methods (Marxist interpretation of reality).

    The Herero started their attacks without provocation, in a situation in which the local civilian European settlers were completely unprotected. You can read up about it in the Wikipedia article:




    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero...maqua_genocide

    So the whole story had two aspects: Military necessity and retaliation. Its not like the Germans were more brutal than the locals, not at all. The many men, even those which killed and tortured themselves, which could be interviewed afterwards, speak for themselves and the will of the Germans for a true "genocide".

    Looking at what Caesar did in his campaign, he is more comparable to what the Germans did in Africa, because he too oftentimes offered friendly terms at first, and only when leaders and tribes betrayed him or acted very gruesome against his own people, he changed the pace and started to eliminate the resistance. Like in one case, he offered one tribe peace the first time, then they rebelled, but were subdued, and again got a favourable peace. But the third time, when they massacred the local Romans in a most brutal way and were stubborn, until they had no choice but to capitulate a third time, after Caeasr forces lost many men, material and time, they were all slaughtered or sold into slavery as a whole, to make an example of it for all of Gallia. One could question what he did, but at least going by the sources, that seems to be a reasonable approach.
    That's also why some Gallic tribes even profited from the Roman conquest, while others were practically annihilated, sometimes, or even most of the time, after having breaking off and rebelling against the Romans the 2nd, 3rd or even 4th time.

    Of course one could question the presence of colonial or any conquering force in the first place, but that's not the point, because all people did that at different times and circumstances. Its about how you treat subdued people "if they behave" and how you treat them "if they don't" and you simply have to protect your own soldiers and civilians. Like in various uprisings, also against the Romans, there were most brutal acts against Romans, soldiers and civilians. One prominent example is Boudiccas rebellion, which tortured and mutiliated tens of thousands of Roman men, women and children to death.

    For me it makes a big difference, probably the biggest, talking about humanity and decency, whether you just kill enemies, or torture them to death in the most gruesome ways and let them suffer for a prolonged period of time, probably even with a sadistic pleasure. Men like Casear could be brutal and goal-oriented, but they were rarely if ever gruesome and sadistic. Which I think is a good quality, especially in his time, in the social and moral context he lived in.
    I know all about the Herero genocide, and how you could try to condone it is beyond me. We're not talking about two thousand years ago; we're talking about a supposedly civilized and modern country in the late 19th and early 20th century. Also, what they did to those people was beyond brutal. In addition, what did those people get in return after being conquered? Did they get infrastructure, education, clean water, a better way of life, inclusion in the countries which conquered them? They got A BIG FAT NOTHING except more bad treatment. There is absolutely no comparison. Far better to have been conquered by the Romans 2,000 years ago than the Belgians and the Germans a hundred years ago. Open your eyes and stop looking at history from your distorted lens. You should be ashamed.

    You should also be ashamed for saying that the only way the Chinese had of dealing with some Islamist stirrings in the Uighers was to put them in concentration camps. Then I guess the Americans putting the Japanese into internment camps was ok too?

    What's next? More semantics to try to justify anti-semitism?

    Then there's Bicicleur, who never misses the chance to jab at the Italians for things the Romans did 2000 years ago while no doubt in his head justifying what his own people did 100 years ago.

    I've tried to stay for the members whose opinions I respect and from whom I can learn something, but I just can't deal with it anymore.

    This site is turning into a cesspool of racist apologists and I want nothing more to do with it. I certainly don't want to be around when someone reports it to watchdog organizations.

    I have a reputation to maintain in this country and I won't have it besmirched.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    208


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Vallicanus View Post
    I wonder if Caesar's assassination actually saved his military reputation?
    He had planned to attack the Parthians, who had already defeated Crassus and Mark Antony.
    that is something we'll never know

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    208


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    I look at it this way, in more recent history, the 1700s, the French had sacked and looted my mother's village. However, I don't hold any ill-will towards the French. In fact, I am looking forward to the day I can visit Paris.


    The Catholic Church sent troops to crush an independence uprising in my Father's town during that time, and in the process executed many of the people there. While I am not really much of a practicing catholic, (in fact, I am an agnostic/more leaning towards atheist, really), my grips with the church are for different reasons. More for their suppression of science, hypocrisy, corruption, and greed. Nevertheless, we turn to them for weddings, baptisms, funerals, etcs.


    In the past, the United States was hostile towards Italian immigrants. Nevertheless, I consider myself to be patriotic, and proud to have been born here.
    that is correct
    if you go back in history every one can find a reason to vilify the rest of the world

    and I don't ignore the acomplishments of the Roman Empire, just showing the other side
    I think that is what studying history is for

    what I don't understand is that some here can't stop glorifying the Roman Empire and at the same time have to vilify the Germanic tribes whenever the occasion appears
    I have decided to ignore her a few weeks ago because the discussions derail all the time

    and about Belgium, this is what I wrote last week :
    https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post626098

    we, Flemish people were despised by the Belgian establishment till 2 generations ago

    I have my own pride, but it is not because of simply belonging to this or other ethnic, religious or cultural group.

    Those who want to diqcuss this kind of topics should find another forum.

    Can we get back to the subject of the thread now?

  24. #24
    Satyavrata Maciamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-07-02
    Location
    Lothier
    Posts
    9,552


    Ethnic group
    Italo-celto-germanic
    Country: Belgium - Brussels



    3 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur 2 View Post
    Belgian history starts with Julius Caesar. He was a very ambitious man but also a mass murderer.
    I don't know how much is true of what he had written in De bello Gallico, but he was boasting how many tribes he beated and murdered.
    The Italians loved his cruel story. It made him very popular.
    It was a war he had initiated himself. He only needed an excuse, the movement of the Helvetii.
    It was all planned. He didn't conquer Gaul for the sake of Rome, but for his own glory.
    Millions died for his glory, not only in Gaul.
    From then on Rome was governed by ambitious men who tried to keep the mass happy and ignorant with panem et circenses.
    Julius Caesar was a very controversial figure in his own time. After all, it is his naked ambition that eventually caused Roman senators to assassinate him. And among his assassins were officers that were with him in Gaul, like Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus or Gaius Trebonius. Even Titus Labienus, his most senior lieutenant during the Gallic Wars, and one of the few officers to serve as legate during the 8 years of Julius Caesar's campaign in Gaul, eventually defected Caesar to join Pompey after Caesar crossed the Rubicon. In Gaul, Labienus had been trying to convince Caesar to seek diplomatic solutions to conflicts and to help Romanise the Gauls in the most helpful, peaceful and positive manner so as to prevent rebellions, rather than seek glorious victories at the cost of tens of thousands of human lives.

    Nevertheless, Caesar's claim that he killed about a million Gauls and Germans (Suebi) seems to be greatly exaggerated. For example Caesar besieged the oppidum of the Aduatuci in what is now the citadel of Namur, where he claimed some 100,000 Aduatuci had huddled, and were eventually all killed or enslaved. It's hard to believe that 100,000 people could fit at the location of the modern citadel, and even harder to believe that there would have been so many people living around it, when the modern city with its suburbs has just 100,000 people today. That would assume that the Belgae could support population densities as high as modern Belgium (one of the highest in Europe today) with modern agricultural technologies and medicine. What's more, the Condrusi tribe occupied the land immediately south of modern Namur, so that Aduatuci would only be the people in the northern section. I would tend to think that there couldn't have been more than 10,000 Aduatuci, 10x less than what Caesar claimed. Let's not forget that De Bello Gallico is first and foremost a work of propaganda designed to aggrandise Caesar's reputation as a great military leader, and numbers could easily be cooked up for that purpose.

    EDIT : Note that the Romans surrounded the oppidum of the Aduatuci and built a huge siege tower. Seeing that, the Aduatuci surrendered, dropping their weapons over the oppidum's walls. Caesar was about to spare all of them in the name of the pax romana. When the Romans entered the oppidum, hidden archers and spearmen tried to kill them by surprise. Confronted with that treachery, Caesar ordered a counter-attack with no quarter. The Aduatuci were ultimately responsible for their own demise.

    It's true that many people died during the conquest of Gaul. But then the ancient world was also far more violent than the modern world. At the battle of Arausio (Orange) in Provence in 105 BCE, a Roman army of 120,000 people were exterminated almost to the last one by the Cimbri, Teutones and some Gallic allies. Huge percentages of casualties in war were relatively normal back then. Defeated tribes could be wiped out or enslaved by the victor (if they considered them a too important threat) anywhere in Europe or the Mediterranean world. Caesar was not particularly more bloodthirsty than average for his time. What people reproached him back home was that he did it for his own glory and for the political control of Rome.
    Last edited by Maciamo; 20-06-21 at 13:41.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    525


    Country: Austria



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Did they get infrastructure, education, clean water, a better way of life, inclusion in the countries which conquered them?
    Some were better off than others, but yes, some of the first things the Germans did was building churches, hospitals, roads, railroads etc, sure not worse than what the Romans did. Some even work to this day and some locals are still proud to have been in German service. Ever heard of the Askaris? They were the African equivalent to Roman auxiliaries in modern times:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Askari

    https://www.historynet.com/mie-askar...man-askari.htm

    I saw interviews with old, former Askari soldiers, which were still proud to have been part of the German local troops and showed off their medals, just like a Celtic or Germanic auxiliary would have 2000 years earlier. Things are not that fundamentally different. You said yourself one should consult Tom Holland and indeed, things should be put into perspective.

    I also didn't justify what they did in detail, I just said it was for me no real genocide and a reaction to absolute horrible acts of the Herero themselves, which started it. That doesn't justify everything, of course, but its not like they just were "evil" and nonsense like that. You said it was worse than what happened in Congo. I think mutilating people for profits is worse than fighting back hard in a guerilla war after the rebels did such horrible things.

    You should also be ashamed for saying that the only way the Chinese had of dealing with some Islamist stirrings in the Uighers was to put them in concentration camps.
    I also don't say everything the Chinese do is right, but you have to consider how they treat their own Han Chinese people, and what these Uighur Islamists did, what kind of terror and brutality they showed, also what that kind of Islamism means, if it spreads. So the Chinese just do what is necessary to get at its root, whereas the "policing" and half-allied kind of policy the US does just made Sunni Islamism grow and own soldiers and innocent civilians die. Its also not like the Chinese did put all Uighurs in institutions, but they try to filter out, rather generously, that's granted, who is associated with conservative to radical Islamic views and connections. That is not nice, but looking at the death & destruction rate in Afghanisthan, for example, and even more important the chances for success, the Chinese have better chances of succeeding, more right to use force and won't destroy more lifes then the US policing missions. If you don't really want to win, why even trying? It just makes things worse and costs life for nothing, while not even protecting your own forces and the local loyalists. The Chinese are different, if they do something, they want results and they try to protect their people and loyalists from vicious attacks, with the means necessary. Read up on what happened before that, what kind of attacks the Islamists did in the province. The Chinese didn't even report most of it, because they were ashamed and didn't want the news to spread, but there happened a lot before they escalated themselves.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •