Romans: the most cruel and most barbaric nation ever existed

[Angela]

A few points here about the Roman Empire.

Western Europe was already well on the way to a "high civilisation" before the Roman expansion. Greeks and Phoenicians together with local Iberian elements had set up an advanced civilisation along the south and east coasts of what is now Spain.

The Greek city states of Marseilles (Massilia) and Nice (Nicaea) had spread Mediterranean trade and civilisation into the very heart of Gaul.

From the time of the Emperor Trajan (ruler from 98 to 117), himself of Spanish origin, most Roman Emperors were no longer Italian, but Spanish, or from the Balkans and occasionally North Africa (eg Septimius Severus).

From the time of Hadrian (117 to 138) most legionaries were from outside Italy and only the Praetorians remained mainly Italian.

And precisely how are these "points" relevant to a discussion of the "cruelty" of Rome as shown in the history of its expansion and rule? Were they less "cruel" once they started using a lot of barbarian mercenaries? More "cruel"? Less discriminate in their cruelty, perhaps? Were foreign emperors less or more cruel and/or competent?

I shouldn't address the "substance" of your remarks, but sometimes I just can't seem to help myself.

We have had this discussion at least twice before, to my recollection. Please provide any proof you have for the proposition that Trajan, as just one example, was not a descendent of Roman colonists in Baetica. (as were his successors in that dynasty) You have heard of Roman colonies, have you not, settled by Romans?

Let me save you the trouble...scholarship in fact indicates that they were descendents of Roman colonists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan


Not that it really matters to me, as I'm neither a "racist" nor an "ethnicist", but I'm allergic to unsubstantiated claims, particularly when they're obviously in furtherance of an agenda, as yours about Rome always seem to be. (One of the things I most admire about the Romans, in fact, is precisely that these kinds of ethnic distinctions were not terribly important to them. A man could become a Roman...he didn't have to have been born one. Even their take on family relationships, i.e. genealogy, was rather fluid...adoption was, in fact, quite common.)

Oh, and these are the dominions of Rome before 117 AD and the heavy use of legionnaires from outside the peninsula. They did quite well without them; actually, I think it turned out to be a very bad mistake to come to rely on foreign mercenaries, as was the case with other empires. Perhaps Rome was unable to put an end to the threat from beyond the Danube partly because they were relying heavily on barbarian mercenaries, including many Germanic tribesmen, although, given the multitudes fleeing in panic from the Huns and climate change, it was probably only a case of staving off the inevitable.

And, as we have also discussed before, you cannot compare the Gallic world of the time, much less the world of the British Isles, with that of the contemporaneous Roman Republic and Empire. No disrespect to them, (or to those of my ancestors who were Ligures) but you're talking about "civilizations" that were on quite different levels. The "glory" times for these people came later.

And I see that you have now posted that Carthage was rebuilt...once again, not quite accurate given the context of the discussion. Carthage was rebuilt by the Romans...i.e. a Roman town for Roman purposes. The sowing of salt was, I admit, probably a later embellishment.

You know, given what can be discovered today on the internet, there's really no excuse for the posting of totally erroneous information...unless the purpose is to mislead...you don't need to have taken university courses in Classics.

 

[oriental]

took the temple down stone by stone.

The Western Wall is still there and a yearly pilgrimage site for Jews. In the triumphal arch in Rome show the looting of the Temple. They revolt was that the Jewish Messiah Bar Kochbar was the leader and lost. The Jews eventually committed suicide in Mesada. The Christians had left for the hills after Jesus crucifixion. That is another story and explains how the new Testament is accepted by Islam as Holy Scripture.

http://www.livius.org/ja-jn/jewish_wars/jwar05.html

 

[Angela]

Angela,
are you talking about when the Ligourians united with Hamilcar in the Battle of Himera against the noble Greeks of Magna Graecia?

P.S.1 Point out the use of the adjective noble:grin:
P.S.2 See how the Greeks treated the Carthaginians after the battle, that is, with no total annihilation.
P.S.3 Another evidence of Roman cruelty and I am about to vote "Yes".

P.S.1 Given that we are living in the modern era, "Signora" will do, or "La Signora" when speaking of me to others.

(Btw, we have real Classics scholars on here, so they may correct me if I'm wrong, but my Latin teacher used to say that Romans didn't actually use the terms Dominus and Domina as forms of address, except in moments of privacy between husband and wife.

P.S.2 Perhaps they were tired after all the brutality with which they had treated one another? The Doric vs Ionian conflicts in Sicily make for some very gory reading. I don't know if you're aware of it, but they've found the remains of 5,000 soldiers at Himera.
P.S.3

The Ligurians had, as the Italians have had in later eras, quite a penchant for choosing the losing side. I was actually thinking about the First and Second Punic Wars. They fought as mercenaries in both, and then in the Second Punic War, they augmented the Carthaginian forces once they had reached Italy after crossing the Alps.

 

[Echetlaeus]

P.S.1 Given that we are living in the modern era, "Signora" will do, or "La Signora" when speaking of me to others.

(Btw, we have real Classics scholars on here, so they may correct me if I'm wrong, but my Latin teacher used to say that Romans didn't actually use the terms Dominus and Domina as forms of address, except in moments of privacy between husband and wife.

Yes, the direct way, by your first name in singular was also used by the ancient Greeks.

There is a point here though (or at least what my "dirty" mind thinks). During the erotic action I suppose, the husband wanted to be addressed as Dominus = the master, the owner (of the woman) \footnote{The same is true for Domina = the Mistress, the owner of the man}. This kind of behaviour and talk increases the libido somehow, but maybe a sexologist can say more about these stuff.

P.S. I have not read "Justine" yet :embarassed:

 

[Angela]

@Echetlaeus



Have you ever seen "A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Forum"? I know, not a funny topic, but a very funny play.

I was thinking of using this picture of "Domina" in the play as a temporary avatar. What do you think?

I could always go with her...Agrippina the Elder...unfortunate in her children and grandchildren, but I always liked her... still, I don't like to take myself too seriously. I even got tired of the Victoria Colonna one.

 

[Echetlaeus]

Signora,
Agrippina as a moral character is more appropriate and I think it fits you better. I do not hide, nonetheless, that a part of me also likes the Dominatrix :ashamed2:.

P.S.1 Are you a psychologist, for I believe this question is related to that profession?
P.S.2 And also, I happen to believe that you are the "Irene Adler" kind of woman Signiora!

 

[Angela]

Signora,
Agrippina as a moral character is more appropriate and I think it fits you better. I do not hide, nonetheless, that a part of me also likes the Dominatrix :ashamed2:.

P.S.1 Are you a psychologist, for I believe this question is related to that profession?
P.S.2 And also, I happen to believe that you are the "Irene Adler" kind of woman Signiora!

I'm afraid you've quite mistaken the character of "Domina" and the tone of the musical.

As for me, it's either Agrippina the Elder or Vesta...and you're being very impertinent, young man!

 

[oriental]

Seems more like Lucy as in "I Love Lucy"

 

[Echetlaeus]

I'm afraid you've quite mistaken the character of "Domina" and the tone of the musical.

My sincere apologies, it will not happen again.

 

[Vallicanus]

And precisely how are these "points" relevant to a discussion of the "cruelty" of Rome as shown in the history of its expansion and rule? Were they less "cruel" once they started using a lot of barbarian mercenaries? More "cruel"? Less discriminate in their cruelty, perhaps? Were foreign emperors less or more cruel and/or competent?

I shouldn't address the "substance" of your remarks, but sometimes I just can't seem to help myself.

We have had this discussion at least twice before, to my recollection. Please provide any proof you have for the proposition that Trajan, as just one example, was not a descendent of Roman colonists in Baetica. (as were his successors in that dynasty) You have heard of Roman colonies, have you not, settled by Romans?

Let me save you the trouble...scholarship in fact indicates that they were descendents of Roman colonists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan


Not that it really matters to me, as I'm neither a "racist" nor an "ethnicist", but I'm allergic to unsubstantiated claims, particularly when they're obviously in furtherance of an agenda, as yours about Rome always seem to be. (One of the things I most admire about the Romans, in fact, is precisely that these kinds of ethnic distinctions were not terribly important to them. A man could become a Roman...he didn't have to have been born one. Even their take on family relationships, i.e. genealogy, was rather fluid...adoption was, in fact, quite common.)

Oh, and these are the dominions of Rome before 117 AD and the heavy use of legionnaires from outside the peninsula. They did quite well without them; actually, I think it turned out to be a very bad mistake to come to rely on foreign mercenaries, as was the case with other empires. Perhaps Rome was unable to put an end to the threat from beyond the Danube partly because they were relying heavily on barbarian mercenaries, including many Germanic tribesmen, although, given the multitudes fleeing in panic from the Huns and climate change, it was probably only a case of staving off the inevitable.

And, as we have also discussed before, you cannot compare the Gallic world of the time, much less the world of the British Isles, with that of the contemporaneous Roman Republic and Empire. No disrespect to them, (or to those of my ancestors who were Ligures) but you're talking about "civilizations" that were on quite different levels. The "glory" times for these people came later.

And I see that you have now posted that Carthage was rebuilt...once again, not quite accurate given the context of the discussion. Carthage was rebuilt by the Romans...i.e. a Roman town for Roman purposes. The sowing of salt was, I admit, probably a later embellishment.

You know, given what can be discovered today on the internet, there's really no excuse for the posting of totally erroneous information...unless the purpose is to mislead...you don't need to have taken university courses in Classics.

What errors am I posting? I KNOW that Carthage was rebuilt by the Romans but you take pride in Roman bloodthirsty thoroughness.

The writer Cassius Dio wrote that Trajan was not Italian either by descent or adoption and it is well documented that most Roman Emperors after Domitian (96-98) were partly or wholly of non-Italian origin.
It's a "cop-out" to imply they were just "Italians" settled abroad. Most colonists by Imperial times had LOCAL wives.
Roman and Italian colonists quickly intermarried with local Romanised aristocrats who came more and more to dominate the Senate in Rome.
The presence of a Latin or Latinised name does not imply Italian descent, least of all "pure" descent from Italy.

Italians largely disappeared from the legions from the reign of Hadrian. Read the books about the Roman army. These books are common and easily accessible.

Most of the top architects and artists of ancient Imperial Rome were of Greek descent and it was mainly their work that inspired the architecture and sculpture of the Renaissance.

As for Roman cruelty, they were certainly very bad with animal and gladiatorial games and the longest-lasting large-scale slavery system in history.

You need to read much more deeply into Roman history.

The Hellenistic World would have "civilised" Western Europe more peacefully through trade and cultural diffusion. Rome had only blood and corruption to offer.

 

[Angela]

What errors am I posting? I KNOW that Carthage was rebuilt by the Romans but you take pride in Roman bloodthirsty thoroughness.

The writer Cassius Dio wrote that Trajan was not Italian either by descent or adoption and it is well documented that most Roman Emperors after Domitian (96-98) were partly or wholly of non-Italian origin.
It's a "cop-out" to imply they were just "Italians" settled abroad. Most colonists by Imperial times had LOCAL wives.
Roman and Italian colonists quickly intermarried with local Romanised aristocrats who came more and more to dominate the Senate in Rome.
The presence of a Latin or Latinised name does not imply Italian descent, least of all "pure" descent from Italy.

Italians largely disappeared from the legions from the reign of Hadrian. Read the books about the Roman army. These books are common and easily accessible.

Most of the top architects and artists of ancient Imperial Rome were of Greek descent and it was mainly their work that inspired the architecture and sculpture of the Renaissance.

As for Roman cruelty, they were certainly very bad with animal and gladiatorial games and the longest-lasting large-scale slavery system in history.

You need to read much more deeply into Roman history.

The Hellenistic World would have "civilised" Western Europe more peacefully through trade and cultural diffusion. Rome had only blood and corruption to offer.

For the adults and/or the literate and/or those not emotionally disturbed in the audience, may we stipulate that all ancient empires, (including that of Alexander of Macedon and those of the Ionian and Dorian city states (honorable mention should be given to the Huns, of course), and some not so ancient ones (it's only about seventy years since the defeat of Nazism, after all, and who can forget the Spanish Inquisition?) were cruel? To attempt to quantify or rate them on some sort of horrific scale is childish and useless. What we should do is resolve to do anything in our power not to emulate them.

As to the rest of your post, it is all off-topic, Vallicanus or whomever you are (Must you really hide behind such a childish name? I'm pretty sure anyone soiled even slightly by acquaintance with some "anthrofora" knows exactly where you're coming from...) and just more of your pathetic series of attacks on all things at all related to Italians. However, I will try once more to approach you with logic.

Please...read...this...all...slowly...so...that...you...can...understand.

It is immaterial to me in any real sense whatsoever whether Trajan and his dynasty were of whole or part or no Roman "blood". I explained that upthread, but apparently you didn't understand it. He was a Roman in every way that really mattered.

However, when points of scholarship are involved, no one should be taken seriously unless they provide the evidence. Please provide the attested statement from "Cassius Dio" that Trajan did not come of a Roman family settled in southern Spain. In Latin, if you please, not translated by you. I'm afraid a statement that he came from Spain will not do.

Until then, I will go with the following, among other choices:
View attachment 6338

And please, do not pretend to a scholarship which you obviously don't possess. Anyone who has ever taken a course in ancient history would know better than to say that Hellenism was spread peacefully. Have you ever heard of Alexander of Macedon? Or the generals who followed him who battled over it?

As to your illogical comments about the legions, I...will...repeat...
Most of the empire was conquered well before the period of mass enrollment of legionaries from outside the peninsula. Since you didn't seem to understand the first map, I will provide another...THE EMPIRE AT THE TIME OF AUGUSTUS.

The future dependence on mercenaries was without doubt, in my opinion, a mistake, one which other empires have also made. Turncoats, many of them... even thirty years in the legions wasn't enough to turn some barbarians stationed on the peripheries of the Empire into Romans. If you want to leave the brute, "wet" work to others, the Ottoman system seems better than most...get them very young, detach them from home and tribe, and indoctrinate them, preferably in the state religion. I don't at all approve, but it seems to have worked better than the Roman system in some ways, at least.

Do you have the history clear now? What I claimed and didn't claim? Why do I doubt your understanding Celt-Iber? Oh, Let me count the reasons!

It's my own fault for not updating my "ignore list". Consider it updated.

Ed. Ah, forgive me...Vallicanus!

 

[Echetlaeus]

Anyone who has ever taken a course in ancient history would know better than to say that Hellenism was spread peacefully. Have you ever heard of Alexander of Macedon? Or the generals who followed him who battled over it?.

Angela, it may be the case, but Alexander's brutality cannot be compared with the Roman one. The only incident that I call brutal, was perhaps the fall of Tyre.

P.S. What do you mean about Vallicanus? I don't get it.

 

[Vallicanus]

Angela knows as much about Hellenic and Roman history as a cat knows about the stock exchange.

I have a history degree while Angela seems to get her knowledge from Wikipedia.

She is a victim of the superficial Italian educational system.

There are degrees of cruelty and the Romans were remarkable for the intensity and longevity of their cruelty.

She does not know or want to know about the cruelty and teachery that built up Roman power (broken treaties, assassination of enemy leaders), the cynical cruelty that maintained it and the cowardice and incompetence that brought it down, at least in the West.

In fact Scipio would not have beaten Hannibal at Zama without Numidian cavalry; Greek cavalry helped the Romans beat the Macedonians and German mercenary cavalry helped Julius Caesar beat the Gauls at Alesia.

Greek-speaking Constantinople alone kept "Roman" power going in the Eastern Mediterranean for a thousand years and for a time in parts of Italy too, against all sorts of attacks by powerful, hostile neighbours.

 

[Echetlaeus]

I have two main questions about the Italian policy towards Greece in the modern era (and actually that is why I do not trust Italobros sometimes) :

1) Why the Italians, along with the Austro-Hungarians, created the Albanian state and left half of Epirus outside Greece (see the case of Northern Epirus).
2) Why the Italians attacked Greece in the WW2 and kept the Dodecanese until 1947.

I thought we were una faca, una raca ... but apparently not!

 

[Vallicanus]

Basically Italians thought they were better than Greeks although they owe most of their culture to Greek antecedents not only in Sicily and Southern Italy where actual Greek city-states flourished in antiquity but at Rome where most of the high culture was directly Greek or Greek via the Etruscans.

No Greeks...no Italian Renaissance, essentially.

Of course the Greeks showed that Mussolini's revived Roman Empire was a sham in the winter of 1940-41.

 

[Echetlaeus]

Basically Italians thought they were better than Greeks although they owe most of their culture to Greek antecedents not only in Sicily and Southern Italy where actual Greek city-states flourished in antiquity but at Rome where most of the high culture was directly Greek or Greek via the Etruscans.

No Greeks...no Italian Renaissance, essentially.

Of course the Greeks showed that Mussolini's revived Roman Empire was a sham in the winter of 1940-41.

Yeah, I am proud of that. Actually I heard that Romans called Greeks barbarians, can you imagine that? They called the creator of the word "barbarian", barbarian.

 

[Vallicanus]

Yeah, I am proud of that. Actually I heard that Romans called Greeks barbarians, can you imagine that? They called the creator of the word "barbarian", barbarian.

Italians have no sense of irony.

 

[Sile]

What errors am I posting? I KNOW that Carthage was rebuilt by the Romans but you take pride in Roman bloodthirsty thoroughness.

The writer Cassius Dio wrote that Trajan was not Italian either by descent or adoption and it is well documented that most Roman Emperors after Domitian (96-98) were partly or wholly of non-Italian origin.
It's a "cop-out" to imply they were just "Italians" settled abroad. Most colonists by Imperial times had LOCAL wives.
Roman and Italian colonists quickly intermarried with local Romanised aristocrats who came more and more to dominate the Senate in Rome.
The presence of a Latin or Latinised name does not imply Italian descent, least of all "pure" descent from Italy.

Italians largely disappeared from the legions from the reign of Hadrian. Read the books about the Roman army. These books are common and easily accessible.

Most of the top architects and artists of ancient Imperial Rome were of Greek descent and it was mainly their work that inspired the architecture and sculpture of the Renaissance.

As for Roman cruelty, they were certainly very bad with animal and gladiatorial games and the longest-lasting large-scale slavery system in history.

You need to read much more deeply into Roman history.

The Hellenistic World would have "civilised" Western Europe more peacefully through trade and cultural diffusion. Rome had only blood and corruption to offer.

The map is distorted in facts especially the 218BC part
The Venetic of north east italy where allies of Rome in this period and also supplied half their army in the battle of Cannae
When and what period the Venetic where "annexed" into the Roman Empire has never been truly resolved.

The albanian/Epirus area are also allies of Rome based on the Epirote migrations and settlement into the heal of Italy as well as taranto.

Clearly this map maker included allies of Rome as part of Rome........a poor effort IMO

 

[Vallicanus]

The map is distorted in facts especially the 218BC part
The Venetic of north east italy where allies of Rome in this period and also supplied half their army in the battle of Cannae
When and what period the Venetic where "annexed" into the Roman Empire has never been truly resolved.

The albanian/Epirus area are also allies of Rome based on the Epirote migrations and settlement into the heal of Italy as well as taranto.

Clearly this map maker included allies of Rome as part of Rome........a poor effort IMO

I posted no maps!

 

[Echetlaeus]

The map is distorted in facts especially the 218BC part
The Venetic of north east italy where allies of Rome in this period and also supplied half their army in the battle of Cannae
When and what period the Venetic where "annexed" into the Roman Empire has never been truly resolved.

The albanian/Epirus area are also allies of Rome based on the Epirote migrations and settlement into the heal of Italy as well as taranto.

Clearly this map maker included allies of Rome as part of Rome........a poor effort IMO

Please do not make the mistake to treat Albania and Epirus as the same entity, because it is simply not!