Did the romans genocide the celts and gauls? Someone with a college

>>3353550
It's pointless to talk about genocide before the 19th and 20th century nationalism and ideas about ethnicity

>>3353550
>Did the romans genocide the celts and gauls?
Yes

Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast just had an episode on this titled The Celtic Holocaust, perhaps you'd like to feast your earholes on that.

>>3353550
No. What's the point in conquering land if you're just going to murder everyone you conquer? Don't get me wrong genocide has its benefits (for example North American Indians) but in the context of Ancient Rome it would be pointless.

>>3353550

Caesar was criticized even by other Romans for what he did. Mostly by Romans who already hated Caesar before that point, but the fact remains. The biggest reason why he was so afraid to go back to Rome was he was afraid that he'd be punished somehow, and given Cato's unrepentant moral-faggotry, his fears were quite justified.

>>3353550
>Did the romans genocide the celts and gauls?

Not really. They killed perhaps 25% of Gaul and enslaved another 25%. The rest were integrated into the province of Gaul.

>give me a general understanding of what took place

Julius Caesar needed money and popularity because everyone in the Senate hated him, so he invaded Gaul to gain both of those things. The Gallic tribes banded together and resisted, but were decisively beaten. Most of the deaths were from the starvation and disease that warfare inevitably brings.

File: Coll.jpg (492KB, 1191x577px) Image search: [Google]

492KB, 1191x577px

>>3353570
yes thank you

>>3353571
>What's the point in conquering land if you're just going to murder everyone you conquer?
You don't murder, you enslave.

Slaves = $$$$$$

>>3353574
>killing and enslaving 1/2 and subjugating the other 1/2 of a population is not genocide

>>3353550
>be Caesar in Gaul
>dividing and conquering these motherfuckers
>some Gauls accept Roman hegemony and help you out, so you go and murder their neighbors who don't like your friends and you by association
>some Gauls like to rove around attacking their more settled neighbors (your allies), better kill them too
>some Gauls think you're getting too big for your boots and have a massive rebellion against you and your hegemony
>kill them as well
>Gaul is conquered, Gauls who Latinised start wearing togas

>>3353574
>Did the romans genocide the celts and gauls?
>Not really.
>goes on to describe a massive genocide

Do you think a genocide has to accomplish total destruction of all the victims to be considered a genocide?

>>3353571
>What's the point in conquering land if you're just going to murder everyone you conque

Crush the spirit of those left

>>3353574
thanks lad

>>3353550
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT92zx790c4

>>3353591
>killing and enslaving 1/2 and subjugating the other 1/2 of a population is not genocide

Genocide implies the purposeful killing of a people to wipe them out root and stem, not a war of conquest. What you're describing is general, run-of-the-mill warfare in the Classical era.

>>3353611
>Genocide implies the purposeful killing of a people to wipe them out root and stem
And that's what the Romans did, they outlawed their priest cast, native religion and hunted them down.

>>3353591
That's just the result of war though and not a real effort to commit genocide on the part of the Romans.

>>3353620
Is it by Dan Carlin and called Hardcore history? If yes, then yes.

>>3353609
thanks again

>>3353611

You don't have to completely wipe out a culture for it to be a genocide.

>>3353625
That can be considered classicide at best. There weren't that many druids.

War was nearly synonymous with genocide in those days.

>>3353635
>ignoring all the religious people they killed
>ignoring the entire tribes wiped off the map for political convenience
>ignoring all the questionable shit and sketchy justifications for total slaughter Caesar claimed in his letters

>>3353635
They literally went to villages and killed all the men, women, and children....sometimes they just killed the men and enslaved the rest.

>>3353635
They annihilate hole tribes and didn't leave much of gaul culture

>>3353644
>They literally went to villages and killed all the men, women, and children....sometimes they just killed the men and enslaved the rest.

As did pretty much every victorious military force since the days of Sumeria. If you think that means every army from 3000BC was purposefully committing genocide, that's fine, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

>>3353665
Not every army, just the ones that killed, replaced or forcefully assimilated other cultures

>>3353665

>Other groups also did it therefore it isn't genocide

This is dumb.

>>3353697
Whether or not a high degree of death and exploitation occurs has no bearing on something being a genocide. If the intention wasn't to literally wipe out the Gauls (it was a war for money and prestige) then it wasn't a genocide. I don't think you recruit large amounts of mercenaries and auxilia from a group you intend to genocide.

They're still around so not successfully.

The Cathaginians though, was completely successful.

>>3353704

Your argument is dumb and you should feel bad. My computer is not the first computer ever made, but it is still a computer. My house is not the first house ever built, but it is still a house. Likewise, the extermination of the Gauls by the Romans isn't the first example of a genocide, but it was still a genocide.

Thing is, I think you need to intend for it to be a genocide to count as one. His goal wasn't just senseless slaughter, it was conquer and subjugate the tribes.

>>3353721
that's what >>3353609 is saying its genocide but it wasn't called that

>>3353721

That's bullshit. By that logic, you could kill 90% of a country's population and it wouldn't be genocide because you didn't kill 100%.

>>3353704
So if you wipe out a culture not because you hate them but want their clay and resources it's not a genocide?
You are wrong and you know it.

>>3353716
>the extermination of the Gauls

What extermination? They were still there, probably a million of them, and they became senators and Emperors. Tacitus was a damned Gaul. An 8 year long war is not a genocide.

>>3353727
There's a difference between "killing 90% of their population because you want to kill them" and "killing 90% of their population because they keep refusing to surrender"

>>3353729

That would be a genocide because you're doing it for a reason.

Well maybe if they weren;t so stubborn and didn't keep fighting back they wouldn't have to keep killing them. I mean it's not like Rome didn't have Celtic allies that were that way because they bent the knee.

>>3353730

>They didn't kill all of them so it didn't happen.

This is dumb.

>>3353732

And who says that? No sensible person would agree with that. I positive you're just trolling now.

gen·o·cide
[ˈjenəˌsīd]

NOUN
the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

>>3353747
If you want their territory, and they refuse to cede it and fight back, what are you supposed to do? NOT kill them?

>>3353749
Ceasar deliberatly killed large groups of gauls

>>3353757
If you kill their fighters, it's warfare
If you start slaughtering non-combatants, it quickly becomes a genocide

>>3353761
got some proof for that?

>>3353768
>If you start slaughtering non-combatants, it quickly becomes a genocide

Only if that becomes the general rule and is the main purpose for fighting. If you slaughter one village to frighten other villages it's just ruthless pragmatism.

>>3353757

If you kill wipe out a large group of people because you want their land, then that's still an example of genocide.

>>3353749

>the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

If we accept this definition as being true, then what Caesar did was genocide in objective terms.

I hate to say "they started it", but they literally did. Even Dan Carlin brings this up in his thing and he's heavily biased towards the Celts. They had every opportunity to just give up at the start and become vassals of the republic. There were celtic tribes that had already done this, and they fought on Caesar's side. But Vercingetorix and his allies believed it was worth risking all their men killed, their women and children enslaved, all for the sake of freedom, a word which was much more nebulous back then than it is today. And really, all his war did was convince Rome that NONE of the Celts could be trusted, and they started turning on even their allies.

>>3353784
>If you kill wipe out a large group of people because you want their land, then that's still an example of genocide.

No anon, that's called a war of conquest, something that used to be the norm. Because that's what you do when people fight back, you kill them.

>>3353780

You're inventing imaginary requirements to move the goal posts. The exact motivation is completely irrelevant. Hitler's primary motivation for invading Poland wasn't to kill all the Jews there, but him killing all the polish jews is still a genocide.

>>3353789

Whether or not it was "normal" has no bearing on the definition of genocide.

>>3353796
I disagree that it was one, but even if it was, genocide was literally not a dirty word prior to the Armenian one. It was just what people did.

>>3353799

I seems that I'm forced to repeat myself. Whether or not it was "normal" has no bearing on the definition of genocide. Genocide has a specific definition which is:

>the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

What Caesar did in Gaul fits that definition exactly. Therefore, it was genocide.

>>3353775
There was nothing left of the Eburones after Ceasar was finished with Belgia

>>3353810
>What Caesar did in Gaul fits that definition exactly. Therefore, it was genocide.

You're leaving out the important factor in a genocide, which is killing a bunch of people deliberately because they are of a certain group, rather than simply killing a bunch of people because there's a war on. The Gauls were not killed for being Gauls.

>>3353799
Nobody here is trying to make a moral judgement of the conflict
Just that what happened was -per definition- a genocide

>>3353824

That's not part of the definition of genocide. You're just adding fake requirements in order to move the goal posts.

>>3353826
>That's not part of the definition of genocide
It is as per Merriam-Webster

>the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

>>3353838

What Caesar did in Gaul perfectly matches that definition. Again, we have proof that Caesar committed genocide.

>>3353550
Not really
Caesar started a war to defend his Gaullic allies against a Germanic King who may or may not have actually been a Celt after which Caesar was backstabbed by the Gauls. So he rampaged through Gaul looking for some heads to knock. Also went to Britain for some reason.

>>3353868
Boudicca pussy, mainly

Bing

Bing.