Jump to content
Lion.Kanzen

undefined discussion subject

Recommended Posts

@Lion.Kanzen it think all the violence and oppression has more to do with power groups maintaining a certain status quo that benefits them, using both soft, and hard power, where "appropriate". 

Quote

The term hard power describes a nation or political body's ability to use economic incentives or military strength to influence other actors' behaviors.

Coined by Nye in the late 1980s, the term "soft power" -- the ability of a country to persuade others to do what it wants without force or coercion

In the 19th century, hegemony came to denote the "Social or cultural predominance or ascendancy; predominance by one group within a society or milieu". Later, it could be used to mean "a group or regime which exerts undue influence within a society".[7] Also, it could be used for the geopolitical and the cultural predominance of one country over others, from which was derived hegemonism, as in the idea that the Great Powers meant to establish European hegemony over Asia and Africa.[8]

In international relations theory, hegemony denotes a situation of (i) great material asymmetry in favour of one state, who has (ii) enough military power to systematically defeat any potential contester in the system, (iii) controls the access to raw materials, natural resources, capital and markets, (iv) has competitive advantages in the production of value added goods, (v) generates an accepted ideology reflecting this status quo; and (vi) is functionally differentiated from other states in the system, being expected to provide certain public goods such as security, or commercial and financial stability.[9]

The Marxist theory of cultural hegemony, associated particularly with Antonio Gramsci, is the idea that the ruling class can manipulate the value system and mores of a society, so that their view becomes the world view (Weltanschauung): in Terry Eagleton's words, "Gramsci normally uses the word hegemony to mean the ways in which a governing power wins consent to its rule from those it subjugates".[10] In contrast to authoritarian rule, cultural hegemony "is hegemonic only if those affected by it also consent to and struggle over its common sense".[11]

In cultural imperialism, the leader state dictates the internal politics and the societal character of the subordinate states that constitute the hegemonic sphere of influence, either by an internal, sponsored government or by an external, installed government.

 

The idea behind the "necessity of violence" is part of the process of manufacturing consent (e.g. "the enemy has weapons of mass destruction" or "the infidels are corrupt in their ways", "Ashur is supreme, the gods have abandoned our enemies"). These kind of rhetorical arguments have been used since the very first states in ancient Sumer and Egypt 

 

This is also interesting:

5ad49b7bce375_ScreenShot2018-04-16at14_37_16.thumb.png.52b8822eee7ea3b37db67ee8c6543ce5.png

 

At the end of the day, it's about power and resources, and the two are very much interlinked... Violence will be used where possible and "appropriate", in large scale (war) or personal attacks (persecution/executions) to maintain status, but this usually has very little to do with the actual necessities of the masses.

I'm not a pacifist, but violent conflict usually only benefits a select few... 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sundiata said:

But seriously though, Romans were genocidal maniacs... Most Imperial civilizations actually... 

Retrospectively, yes, human history is rich in genocide - and it's still happening right now in Myanmar and elsewhere. However, I wouldn't correlate genocide with empires. Assyrians, Mongols, the USA, yes, their expansion often went hand-in-hand with committing genocide. On the other hand, the Achaemenids, Abbasids, Habsburgs, and many (perhaps most) other empires were quite tolerant and non-genocidal. As for the Romans, yes, they occassionally committed mass murder, but I wouldn't call them genocidal, nor maniacs. Mao Zedong would be a better a much better example of a maniac; his “Great Leap Forward” directly caused the death of perhaps 50-100 million, far more than all world wars combined.

EDIT: I see Sundiata has posted again while I was writing the above.

Edited by Nescio
did not see previous post
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not I'm referring to unnecessary genocides , like Mesoamerican rituals.

But still happens in the history. 

But is a modern term. 

Quote

Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people (usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part. The hybrid word "genocide" is a combination of the Greek word génos ("race, people") and the Latin suffix -cide ("act of killing").[1] The United Nations Genocide Convention defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group".[

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Nescio, mostly true...

 except: 

1 hour ago, Nescio said:

As for the Romans, yes, they occassionally committed mass murder, but I wouldn't call them genocidal, nor maniacs. 

"Occasionally" he says... lol, just playing, but seriously, Romans did more than just the "occasional mass murder"... lol...

Let me quote Calgacus in the words of Tacitus:

"They plunder, they slaughter, and they steal: this they falsely name Empire, and where they make a wasteland, they call it peace."

 

Spoiler

Whenever I consider the origin of this war and the necessities of our position, I have a sure confidence that this day, and this union of yours, will be the beginning of freedom to the whole of Britain. To all of us slavery is a thing unknown; there are no lands beyond us, and even the sea is not safe, menaced as we are by a Roman fleet. And thus in war and battle, in which the brave find glory, even the coward will find safety. Former contests, in which, with varying fortune, the Romans were resisted, still left in us a last hope of succour, inasmuch as being the most renowned nation of Britain, dwelling in the very heart of the country, and out of sight of the shores of the conquered, we could keep even our eyes unpolluted by the contagion of slavery. To us who dwell on the uttermost confines of the earth and of freedom, this remote sanctuary of Britain's glory has up to this time been a defence. Now, however, the furthest limits of Britain are thrown open, and the unknown always passes for the marvellous. But there are no tribes beyond us, nothing indeed but waves and rocks, and the yet more terrible Romans, from whose oppression escape is vainly sought by obedience and submission. Robbers of the world, having by their universal plunder exhausted the land, they rifle the deep. If the enemy be rich, they are rapacious; if he be poor, they lust for dominion; neither the east nor the west has been able to satisfy them. Alone among men they covet with equal eagerness poverty and riches. To robbery, slaughter, plunder, they give the lying name of empire; they make a solitude and call it peace.

Sums it up pretty nicely... 

Entire regions were depopulated... More cultures and languages went extinct during the Roman occupation than any other period in European history (I think). Sure, they also brought about innovations and infrastructure, but the wholesale destruction of pre-Roman cultures makes it almost impossible to ascertain exactly at what cost.

Edited by Sundiata

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And another discussion has started, great, we both like nitpicking, so here we go again:

57 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

@Nescio, mostly true...

 except: 

"Occasionally" he says... lol, just playing, but seriously, Romans did more than just the "occasional mass murder"... lol...

The Romans were certainly not always nice and friendly, however, mass murder and genocide are two different things. Caesar's conquest of Gaul caused the death of a large part of its population, however, it was not genocide. The closest thing to genocide committed by the Romans I can think of is the destruction of Carthage and Corinth in 146 BC; the "classical example" of the Jews is actually a rather poor one; if you have any better examples, please let me know.

57 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

Entire regions were depopulated...

Examples, please :)

57 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

More cultures and languages went extinct during the Roman occupation than any other period in European history (I think).

"Roman occupation", interesting; how would you define that? And where would you say it starts and ends? To me, occupation is something provisional. On the other hand, the last Roman Empires ceased to exist in 1917-1922 AD. (And Roman Catholicism still continues to exist.) Languages evolve and disappear, cultures change, that's natural, so if you take a large area with a high diversity in a long timeframe, yes, a lot will be gone. But is it genocide?

Yes, expansion and conquest went hand in hand, but romanization was achieved mostly by peaceful means and happened gradually. Local leaders were given Roman citizenship, local gods received Roman temples, Roman coinage spread Roman propaganda, local tribes supplied men to fight for Rome as auxilia, trade were integrated, trade volume intensified, etc.

I'm not saying the Romans were not brutal (according to our modern standards), however, genocide is something different.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sundiata said:

Sorry to hear that. I understand Venezuela is going through some rough times... I wish you all strength! 

How is it on the ground? It's difficult to figure out exactly what's going on from the news... Are there any "good guys" in the picture, or is proper leadership missing from all sides? How do you see the situation evolving? 

Missing leaders from all sides, last proper lider was massacred while on transmisision and the actual "Oposition" are just traitors so yes intervention is needed no matter what is said on TV or what the false liders says.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Romans performs that's vengeances, because the war Carthage was destroyed because the horror of blood war like Punic wars. 

Carthage was not a innocent peaceful, people.

maxresdefault.jpg

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sassanid dynasty commits martyrdom

Quote

When the martyrdom of Mar Shimun and his companions was taking place, one of those under condemnation, named Hananiah, seemed to waver. At the sight of the sword which was about to fall he trembled and appeared as if about to yield At this moment a high official in the palace, a prefect by the name of Pusak, called out from the midst of the crowd of onlookers, “Do not be afraid, Hananiah. Shut your eyes a little that you may open them on the light of Christ.” Hardly had he said these words when Pusak was seized by the guards and dragged to the palace before the king. Shapur, annoyed by the intervention of this nobleman and afraid perhaps of finding himself surrounded by officers won over to this new doctrine and who might avenge the death of their co-religionists on his own person, angrily asked Pusak, “Have I not given you work to do? Why then do you ignore my orders and stay to look at the punishment of these good-for-nothings?”

The first “firman” of persecution [under the Persian Shah Shapur II] ordered all Christians to pay double tax as a contribution to the cost of the war [between Persia and Rome], and the Catholicos or Patriarch [of the Persian Church], as representing the church, was ordered to collect the amount. This Mar Shimun, the Catholicos [like the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church], refused to do so, on the grounds that his people were too poor to pay and that he was not a tax-collector. His arrest and the destruction of all Christian churches was immediately ordered. He was arrested at Seleucia-Ctesiphon [the Sassanid capital] and taken to Karka d’Ledan where the king was. His farewell blessing to his flock has been handed down to us: “May the cross of our Lord,” he says, “be the protection of the people of Jesus. May the peace of God be with the servants of God and stablish your hearts in the faith of Christ, in tribulation and in ease, in life and in death, now and forevermore.”

  http://www.oxuscom.com/persecution.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Nescio I have a very strong preference for using dictionary definitions of words... Genocide doesn't mean the total destruction of a people, as many think.. There are still 3 million Tutsis, for example..

Quote

Definition of genocide

: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
 
 
Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people (usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part. The hybrid word "genocide" is a combination of the Greek word génos ("race, people") and the Latin suffix -cide ("act of killing").[1] The United Nations Genocide Convention, which was established in 1948, defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group".[2][3]

Romans were genocidal ;) They wiped out peoples, cultures, languages and religions, in a deliberate policy of Romanisation... It doesn't mean because they tolerated and even patronised some, that others weren't wiped from the pages of history... 

Necrometrics: Body count of the Roman Empire:

These are by no means precise/absolute numbers, but they give a good idea..:

http://necrometrics.com/romestat.htm

 

Those numbers by no means include all the Roman massacres... For example, studying Kushite history, I learnt of the sack of Napata, its destruction, killings and deportation of its population in to slavery are not included, but are mentioned by Strabo and possibly the Kushites themselves in the Hamadab Stele. No specific numbers are given, but there were dozens of towns and cities between the Roman border and Napata, so what happened there? The area was reported to be largely abandoned a few generations later. The Roman conquest and destruction of Germa (of the Garamantes) isn't mentioned. Roman campaigns in Dacia and Thrace aren't mentioned. Samnite wars and Roman-Etruscan wars aren't mentioned. None of the earlier Roman Gallic wars are mentioned. The invasion of the Sabaean Kingdom isn't mentioned... Each of these conflicts was accompanied by acts of genocide (and other severe human rights violations)...

I'm not trying to overly demonise Romans here, I know nearly everybody wielding so much power ends up committing atrocities (including all of our civs in game)... I'm also not trying to moralise them with my 21st century ethical standards. I'm just pointing out that they were very proficient at killing huge numbers of people, resulting in total/partial depopulation of regions, resettled by "friendly" tribes, for example after the massacres and deportations of the resisting Belgae (Nervii, Atrebates, Viromandui and Atuatuci). 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alexandermb said:

Missing leaders from all sides, last proper lider was massacred while on transmisision and the actual "Oposition" are just traitors so yes intervention is needed no matter what is said on TV or what the false liders says.

Feel free to elaborate...  "last proper lider", who? "intervention is needed" from who?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Óscar_Alberto_Pérez This was the last lider as well as his comrades however only he and other guy was ready to show the faces to the regime ( family outside the country and risking to loose everything). intervention is needed from anyone, Colombia, Brasil, Guyana, USA imagine theres a whole country kidnaped by the same military forces, and its not possible to vote for another president, last year in 16 july the "oposition" properly formed a massive votation (even i voted) reaching 7+ millions for properly change the government and their structures, but well as they are playing at the same side of the regim they didn't do anything. We have been waiting for ONU, for OEA for the CPI, any international democratic system and they always meet and fail to have a decision, i watched most of them via youtube stream and said what they need to say and thats it, never reach a conclusion never act, right now me and most of the venezuelan citizens wouldn't mind if USA France and United Kingdom do what they did last friday here, in fact we ask for it (No joke, in social media you can see people asking for bomb :P, same if you ask someone in outside).

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Alexandermb Daaayum... Good luck... Please stay away from American bombs though... Things can always get worse (look at Syria), so be careful what you wish for... How come Maduro is so entrenched??? The army supports him, I guess, but isn't the army part of the people, or are there other divisions I'm not seeing, because even a socialist can see the guy is messing up the otherwise beautiful country... 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

@Alexandermb Daaayum... Good luck... Please stay away from American bombs though... Things can always get worse (look at Syria), so be careful what you wish for... How come Maduro is so entrenched??? The army supports him, I guess, but isn't the army part of the people, or are there other divisions I'm not seeing, because even a socialist can see the guy is messing up the otherwise beautiful country... 

Venezuelan citizens are joyfull people and most of them won't give up easily, structures can be rebuilt, families are already lost because of what happened last year (and still being lost) whitout bombs the number of death citizens its even higher only that not all are public domain we may cry if we lost someone by accident if we got intervention someday but later we will keep on.

The army is like a dog literally i cannot say its all because some of them are in jail for rebelion (even if they don't show any sign of rebelion) but most of them are criminals (literally there are a lot of recognized as wanted criminals) they may bite you one day because they are hungry but as soon as you give him a toy (bullets and weapons) and their ration of food (pathetic if i must say rice alone sometimes) they are okay thats for the low ranks soldiers, for the generals and liutenants they have an special treatment where they receive cars of this year, houses, tires for contraband and their own drug contraband territory (all of those are documented) they have their special ration of food so they never starve.

And theres a second army not official but it is part of the regime, they are called "Colectivos" in spanish, they are mostly criminals and like saying mercenaries first time implemented by Chavez.

Here can be see what colectivos are, the guy in the middle clearly can be recognized as a general and its called Fabio Zavarce, the right guy with glasses with red beret is Valentin Santana a wanted criminal leader of that zone. That day was a public political campaing for the reelection of Maduro.

Spoiler

0.jpgimage.jpeg.8739f60c6bfa611fe1ca6fc7d24f5a7d.jpegmaxresdefault.jpg


This is a picture of a facebook post where the guy literally ask for a bomb, the page response is: its because they haven't killed us yet with toxins. Later the guy:  Venezuelan expresion You haven't drinked milk of the food boxes (CLAP). That milk has been analized by one of the best universities of Venezuela as harmful to health and i saw the milk after you prepare it it leaves something as a stone under the glass, others have pasta with cockroaches, other have small death rats.

Spoiler

30698555_236838403724710_230410435491266560_n.png?_nc_cat=0&oh=a6155a2664314693c37472032ed4ac93&oe=5B299A6C



 

Edited by Alexandermb
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

@Nescio I have a very strong preference for using dictionary definitions of words... Genocide doesn't mean the total destruction of a people, as many think.. There are still 3 million Tutsis, for example..

Yes, me too. I'm fully aware of the difference. Whether or not the genocide succeeded is irrelevant, however, what matters is the intent. If the extermination of a people is deliberately planned and started, it is genocide, even if actually only a handful are killed. If, on the other hand, there is no intention of wiping out a people, then it is not genocide (even if they do disappear).

The Romans were involved in many campaigns and wars in a timeframe of several centuries, and as a consequence possibly millions died. They have razed numerous settlements to the ground, yes. However, their body count is irrelevant. I'm questioning whether those death tolls were intentional. In the case of 146 BC, yes, it was the intention of Rome to destroy Carthage and Corinth, so calling it genocide is justified here. However, these two cases were exceptional; I can't think of any other instances of genocide.

Take, for instance, Caesar's conquest of Gaul. Did numerous Gauls die as a consequence of his actions? Yes. Was it his intention to exterminate Gauls? No. He wanted to pacify Gaul, expand Rome's borders, win himself a glorious victory necessary for his career, enrich himself along the way to pay off his debts from his election campaigns, etc. Many Gaulish tribes were allied with Rome, and many Gaulish tribes chose or were coerced to ally with Vercingetorix and oppose Caesar. Atrocities were committed by both sides. Vercingetorix razed many towns himself and forced many Gauls to migrate in order to prevent them from falling in Roman hands. If a hostile settlement surrended to Caesar, it was spared though often plundered; if it resisted and was taken by force, it was razed and its population enslaved; that doesn't make it genocide. Over the course of the Gallic Wars a significant part of Gaul's population died, many because of starvation, since prolonged warfare disrupted food production and led to chronic shortages. However, as far as I am aware, there is not any evidence that the Romans did intend to wipe out the Gauls; therefore it's not genocide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Nescio said:

However, these two cases were exceptional; I can't think of any other instances of genocide.

Servius Sulpicius Galba's massacre of the Lusitani in 150 BC is a pretty blatant example of a Roman committed genocide... 10.000 dead, 20.000 sold into slavery....

Murdering the living daylights out of the Atuatuci after they rejected Roman domination and counterattacked in a last desperate gasp for freedom, and then selling 53.000 survivors in to slavery is another compelling example...

 

38 minutes ago, Nescio said:

if it resisted and was taken by force, it was razed and its population enslaved; that doesn't make it genocide.

lol, actually it does... The wholesale destruction of a community, with intent, is the definition of genocide...

Nobody "accidentally" sells an entire town or city into slavery...

 

38 minutes ago, Nescio said:

a significant part of Gaul's population died, many because of starvation, since prolonged warfare disrupted food production and led to chronic shortages.

That's also a part of genocide... 

 

38 minutes ago, Nescio said:

there is not any evidence that the Romans did intend to wipe out the Gauls;

Completely not taking into account that "Gaul" is a Roman invention, that says next to nothing about the actual cultural and political nature of the tribes and states existing in Gaul... Celts have a shared culture and language, to a degree, sure, but identified themselves primarily by tribe. Caesar and everybody else knew these tribes, their political disposition, and knew what the results of marching legions into their homelands would be. They specifically targeted some of these tribes for wholesale destruction. Through murder, enslavement and deportation, as well deforestation, burning of settlements and farms. Textbook examples of genocide...

Edited by Sundiata

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

Servius Sulpicius Galba's massacre of the Lusitani in 150 BC is a pretty blatant example of a Roman committed genocide... 10.000 dead, 20.000 sold into slavery....

Murdering the living daylights out of the Atuatuci after they rejected Roman domination and counterattacked in a last desperate gasp for freedom, and then selling 53.000 survivors in to slavery is another compelling example...

 

lol, actually it does... The wholesale destruction of a community, with intent, is the definition of genocide...

Nobody "accidentally" sells an entire town or city into slavery...

 

That's also a part of genocide... 

 

Completely not taking into account that "Gaul" is a Roman invention, that says next to nothing about the actual cultural and political nature of the tribes and states existing in Gaul... Celts have a shared culture and language, to a degree, sure, but identified themselves primarily by tribe. Caesar and everybody else knew these tribes, their political disposition, and knew what the results of marching legions into their homelands would be. They specifically targeted some of these tribes for wholesale destruction. Through murder, enslavement and deportation, as well deforestation, burning of settlements and farms. Textbook examples of genocide...

Vae Victis.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently my definition is somewhat narrower than yours. Manslaughter, murder, and capital punishment are all different things, even though in each of them a person dies. The disappearence of a people is not necessarily genocide.

The reason I called 146 BC exceptional, is because in these cases, the intent is clear. The Roman senate decided Carthage and Corinth were to be destroyed, gave Roman allies bordering those two targets carte blanche to provoke them, to grant Rome a casus belli, and subsequently Roman armies were dispatched with the destruction of those cities as the objective.

2 hours ago, Sundiata said:

Servius Sulpicius Galba's massacre of the Lusitani in 150 BC is a pretty blatant example of a Roman committed genocide... 10.000 dead, 20.000 sold into slavery....

Even according to Roman standards, what Galba did was wrong. Upon his return to Rome, he was charged for the atrocity he committed, but he bribed his way out. Later, as a consul, he was not allowed to return to Hispania when he tried to gain command of the Roman army there.
Nevertheless, it could be argued Galba committed genocide.

2 hours ago, Sundiata said:

Murdering the living daylights out of the Atuatuci after they rejected Roman domination and counterattacked in a last desperate gasp for freedom, and then selling 53.000 survivors in to slavery is another compelling example...

The Atuatuci were besieged by the Romans, they surrendered, opened their gates, handed over some weapons, and Caesar recalled his soldiers in the evening. However, the Atuatuci then launched a night attack on the Romans, during which many were killed, the Romans won, and retook the city. The survivors were sold into slavery.

The sale of prisoners of war as slaves was common practice. As a consequence tribes could die out, yes. However, there is a difference between "to destroy that people, let's enslave them" and "we now have these prisoners of war, let's sell them". Was it Caesar's intention to destroy the Atuatuci? Not really, therefore I won't call it genocide.

2 hours ago, Sundiata said:

lol, actually it does... The wholesale destruction of a community, with intent, is the definition of genocide...

Nobody "accidentally" sells an entire town or city into slavery...

Correlation does not imply causation.
If women are prevented from getting pregnant and giving birth, to make a population to die out, then it's genocide. If, on the other hand, all the men left on a military campaign and failed to return, and as a consequence their women did not have any more children, then it's not.
Likewise, if crops were deliberatedly destroyed with the intention to cause famine to exterminate the enemy, then yes, it's genocide. If, on the other hand, all the men were fighting and had thus no time to work the land, with the result that there was no food next year, and their people starved, then no, it's not genocide.

2 hours ago, Sundiata said:

Completely not taking into account that "Gaul" is a Roman invention, that says next to nothing about the actual cultural and political nature of the tribes and states existing in Gaul... Celts have a shared culture and language, to a degree, sure, but identified themselves primarily by tribe. Caesar and everybody else knew these tribes, their political disposition, and knew what the results of marching legions into their homelands would be. They specifically targeted some of these tribes for wholesale destruction. Through murder, enslavement and deportation, as well deforestation, burning of settlements and farms. Textbook examples of genocide...

I use "Gaul" as a shorthand for "the area inhabited by various Celtic tribes that was gradually conquered by the Romans and eventually became the provinces of Gallia and Belgica". I certainly did not intend to imply it was a single political entity before the Romans, nor do I claim its inhabitants self-identified (primarily) as Gauls or Celts.

Tribes that opposed the Romans were targeted, yes, but were they targeted because of their tribe (genocide) or because they opposed the Romans? Hard to say and hard to separate the two.

To summarize, many things might be interpreted as genocide, but then again, they also might not. And innocent until proven guilty :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People many modern termes it doesn't  exists. think all Human developing since Martin Luther, then the movement of French revolution. We are think for example Romans enslave their enemies, and their slave revolt , finish in mass executions. The slaves were less than objects , even some less than a horse. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so let me just remark that the silliness of discussing "genocide" in the ancient world is not lost on me... The term came into existence in 1944...

We're just testing wether or not the word can be applied to the actions of the Romans, e.g., in a modern international court of law, would the Romans be tried under The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, as defined by the United Nations General Assembly, as:

Quote

Article 2 of the Convention defines genocide as

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
— Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2[4]

Article 3 defines the crimes that can be punished under the convention:

(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.
— Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 3[4]

 

Under the only internationally accepted definition of genocide, the actions of the Romans, in many instances, WITHOUT QUESTION, amount to genocide...

 

8 hours ago, Nescio said:

Even according to Roman standards, what Galba did was wrong.

That's completely besides the question and somewhat inappropriate... Hitlers actions in Auschwitz and other sites were repugnant "even" according to German standards... The fact that Galba wasn't even punished just rubs salt in the wound.

 

8 hours ago, Nescio said:

Later, as a consul, he was not allowed to return to Hispania when he tried to gain command of the Roman army there.

Poor Galba... Poor Consul Galba... They even promoted this clown.... smh... 

 

8 hours ago, Nescio said:

The Atuatuci were besieged by the Romans, they surrendered, opened their gates, handed over some weapons, and Caesar recalled his soldiers in the evening. However, the Atuatuci then launched a night attack on the Romans, during which many were killed, the Romans won, and retook the city. The survivors were sold into slavery.

The sale of prisoners of war as slaves was common practice. As a consequence tribes could die out, yes. However, there is a difference between "to destroy that people, let's enslave them" and "we now have these prisoners of war, let's sell them". Was it Caesar's intention to destroy the Atuatuci? Not really, therefore I won't call it genocide.

.... The Atuatuci ceased to exist as a people, as a deliberate attempt by Caesar to eradicate their opposition to Rome, and send a clear message to other tribes. 

  • Step 1: march your Roman legions into sovereign non-Roman territory. (a territory known to despise Romans) 
  • Step 2: terrorize the people into submission
  • Step 3: defeat a last desperate attempt of a free people to maintain their freedom
  • Step 4: Sell the entire tribe, old men, women and children (non-combatants) into slavery as punishment for their resistance to Rome
  • Step 5: congratulate yourself on this "not-genocide"

I can just imagine Julius scratching his head after the whole affair: "Did we just "accidentally" annihilate an entire tribe? Again? Oops.... Luckily the term genocide doesn't get coined until 1944, so I think we're good". :P 

 

9 hours ago, Nescio said:

Correlation does not imply causation.

That's not the question, unless you're trying to argue that the Romans accidentally drove entire tribes into extinction... I'm not receptive to that kind of rhetoric... If you march tens of thousands of trained fighters into a sovereign territory that doesn't belong to you, then kill all the resisting enemy combatants, and subsequently sell off their women children and elderly as slaves, while demolishing their strongholds and burning their fields, and inviting other, more friendly tribes to inhabit the area, effectively erasing the the original ethnic, cultural, tribal or even linguistic character of the region, you're committing genocide... Not just any old genocide, no, we're talking textbook genocide here.

 

9 hours ago, Nescio said:

Tribes that opposed the Romans were targeted, yes, but were they targeted because of their tribe (genocide) or because they opposed the Romans? Hard to say and hard to separate the two.

Dude, it's not hard to say... "but were they targeted because of their tribe (genocide) or because they opposed the Romans?" ... Rhetorics... The TRIBES resisted Rome, so those entire TRIBES were targeted and disappeared off the face of the earth, as a result of mass-murder, mass enslavement and deportation (let's not forget rape) and the destruction of their property and livelihood... The fact that other tribes were left intact, even patronised, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that these were targeted extermination campaigns... Whether they decided to exterminate them when they first set off on campaign, or whether they only decided to exterminate them after having subjugated them already is irrelevant. The point is that there was a deliberate effort to erase from Gaul, any people (tribe) that resisted Rome.     

 

9 hours ago, Nescio said:

And innocent until proven guilty

 Caesar was not innocent, he confessed to many of his crimes in a rather braggadocious manner in his De Bello Gallico, which would definitely get him convicted on innumerable counts of genocide under The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, as defined by the United Nations General Assembly.

 

On another note, the examples discussed here are only some of the more clearly documented events. The majority of genocides in the ancient world would not have even entered the records, simply because the whole point of genocide is to erase a people...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

Ok, so let me just remark that the silliness of discussing "genocide" in the ancient world is not lost on me... The term came into existence in 1944...

Yes, the term genocide was coined only in 1943, however, with specifically the archetypical Armenian (and Assyrian and Greek) genocide(s) of 1915-1923(?) in mind, therefore applying this modern concept retrospectively is not inappropiate.

1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

On another note, the examples discussed here are only some of the more clearly documented events. The majority of genocides in the ancient world would not have even entered the records, simply because the whole point of genocide is to erase a people...

No objections. History is written by the victors and only a tiny fraction of it has survived.

 

Nonetheless, mass murder is not necessarily genocide. Intentional ethnic cleansing is. I don't consider just being at the wrong place at the wrong time, e.g. Ieper/Ypres, Dresden, or Nagasaki, genocides; would you? Don't you think the broad way you seem to apply the term could make almost all sieges, bombings, colonizations, military campaigns, etc. genocides? If a term can be applied to about everything, it becomes rather meaningless. Therefore I favour a narrower application of the term genocide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Nescio said:

Yes, the term genocide was coined only in 1943, however, with specifically the archetypical Armenian (and Assyrian and Greek) genocide(s) of 1915-1923(?) in mind, therefore applying this modern concept retrospectively is not inappropiate.

That's why it's an interesting discussion ;) 

 

Just now, Nescio said:

Nonetheless, mass murder is not necessarily genocide. Intentional ethnic cleansing is.

Agreed, random mass murder doesn't equate to genocide... The Roman massacres I've been referring to aren't random killings though. 

 

Just now, Nescio said:

I don't consider just being at the wrong place at the wrong time, e.g. Ieper/Ypres, Dresden, or Nagasaki, genocides; would you?

Nope, because those places were part of a larger demographic/cultural/ethnic/religious whole, which weren't ever targeted in their entirety e.g. wiping out the Belgians, Germans or Japanese was never on anybody's agenda. Wiping out the Atuatuci after they rejected Roman authority was part of the agenda. It wasn't an accident, and it targeted the tribe in its entirety.

 

5 minutes ago, Nescio said:

Don't you think the broad way you seem to apply the term could make almost all sieges, bombings, colonizations, military campaigns, etc. genocides?

As I said, it's about what you're targeting. Carthage, the city was destroyed, but Carthaginians as a people and a culture were targeted in their entirety as well, making it genocide... The same goes for Corinth.

A random massacre during a random siege doesn't equate to genocide, unless the entirety of a people, culture, history traditions or religion are embedded in that city (or town). It depends on the political reality on the ground, and the scope of the target. If all the Germans were rounded up in Dresden, and then Dresden was bombed, for example, that would constitute genocide. Since that wasn't the case, it's not...

In the case of the Atuatuci, the Lusitanians, the Carthaginians, and the annihilation of Corinth, we see 4 unequivocal cases of genocide, committed by Rome. And those are just the clearly documented ones. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

That's why it's an interesting discussion ;) 

 

Agreed, random mass murder doesn't equate to genocide... The Roman massacres I've been referring to aren't random killings though. 

 

Nope, because those places were part of a larger demographic/cultural/ethnic/religious whole, which weren't ever targeted in their entirety e.g. wiping out the Belgians, Germans or Japanese was never on anybody's agenda. Wiping out the Atuatuci after they rejected Roman authority was part of the agenda. It wasn't an accident, and it targeted the tribe in its entirety.

 

As I said, it's about what you're targeting. Carthage, the city was destroyed, but Carthaginians as a people and a culture were targeted in their entirety as well, making it genocide... The same goes for Corinth.

A random massacre during a random siege doesn't equate to genocide, unless the entirety of a people, culture, history traditions or religion are embedded in that city (or town). It depends on the political reality on the ground, and the scope of the target. If all the Germans were rounded up in Dresden, and then Dresden was bombed, for example, that would constitute genocide. Since that wasn't the case, it's not...

In the case of the Atuatuci, the Lusitanians, the Carthaginians, and the annihilation of Corinth, we see 4 unequivocal cases of genocide, committed by Rome. And those are just the clearly documented ones. 

Are systematic by traumas and people own fear.

"Hannibal at the Gates"

The defeats of Allie and the sack of Rome.

The Invasions of Cimbri and Teutons and the Defeat of Arausio.

Spoiler

Rome was a war-faring nation and was accustomed to setbacks. However, the recent string of defeats ending in the calamity at Arausio was alarming for all the people of Rome. The defeat left them with a critical shortage of manpower and lost military equipment but also with a terrifying enemy camped on the other side of the now-undefended Alpine passes. In Rome, it was widely thought that the defeat was due to the arrogance of Caepio rather than to a deficiency in the Roman Army, and popular dissatisfaction with the ruling classes grew.

As it turned out, the Cimbri next clashed with the Arverni tribe, and after a hard struggle set out for the Pyrenees instead of immediately marching into Italy. This gave the Romans time to re-organise and elect the man who would become known as the savior of Rome, Gaius Marius.

The Massacre of Teutoburg Forest

The Third Servile War...etc

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/4/2018 at 3:55 PM, Nescio said:

@Alexandermb, military intervention often makes things worse (e.g. Libya, Yemen), unfortunately.

Even if the history says that we still need it, officialy Maduro is no longer president since two days ago IIRC (Even when he never was legally president so he is now double illegal dictator) recently the traitors after a lot of pressure of the citizens they did what they had to do a long long time ago, so our "Millitary Forces" are forced now by the law to remove from the charge Maduro but they wouldn't we can only hope on another international forces and we need a mass cleaning of our millitary forces since most of them are criminals and they will remain doing harm to people with or whitout president so yes, belive it thats our only hope no matter what.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×