What's cool about Roman empire?

>>53957512
It just is.

>>53957512
they were master architects and engineers, with a disciplined and professional fighting force, and could draw upon the peoples of dozens of countries from all across the known world

their professional army was not replicated until the rise of national armies at hte end of the renaissance, they had large cities unsurpassed in size, their roads and foundations were considerably more advanced than those that came after

the romans were in many ways, the advanced precursors to nearly the entire middle ages, with a diverse and colorful history and demographics that would allow nearly any character archetype to exist within it

>>53957512
It was pretty big.

>>53957512
It appeals to the wannabe-fascists of the board who want thick militarized cock shoved in every orifice. Also they had some neat armor i guess.

File: MarcusAurelius.jpg (138KB, 682x1023px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 682x1023px

>>53957512
>What's cool about Roman empire?
Some of their emperors were great philosophers

>>53957512
http://www.arsbellica.it/pagine/antica/Alesia/alesia_eng.html
technically the republic but you get a whole bunch of stupid stuff with them.
It's like a fucking cartoon at time politically.

Also those things look overdesigned as fuck

>>53957641
>wannabe-fascists
>rome
is this fucking idiot serious
You are a cock snuffling faggot who needs to learn the value human rights
because you've never seen a world without it.

>>53957690
Like the right to be a slave, the right to assimilate or die, or the right to be killed by my own father?

>>53957612
4u

>>53957908
Oh, oh, or the right to be publicly mutilated? Starved to death? Raped to death by a lion? Raped by a citizen, as a non-citizen, with no legal recourse? Or castrated and kept as a 'deliciae'?

>>53958069
>>53957908
that's my point.
I love rome for that, it's a stark reminder of past savagery
>rome is facist
i guess monarchies are fascist too

>>53957908
Slavery in Roman times wasn't the chattel kind and had more in common with indentured servitude.

Also yeah, if you compare everyone from the past to modern standard you'll be greatly disappointed, but if you just don't be retarded and look at them relative to the others around at the time you'll see that they were pretty damn fair.

Assimilate or die is pretty damn progressive when everyone else is just die.

>>53957908
>>53958069
That's what makes Rome so cool. In certain ways it resembles modern civilized society (western law is based on roman law, hence the latin) but it's also brutal and barbaric in many respects. That's why it's such an interesting setting and period of time.

>>53958142
>Assimilate or die is pretty damn progressive when everyone else is just die.
the Assyrians had something like that too.
Submit or we'll kill everyone and make a tower from the skulls.

>>53958142
>when everyone else is just die.
realistically very few successful empires were "just die" because up until the industrial age exterminating an entire ethnic group is time consuming and really not worth the effort.

>>53958130
Rome (or at least the Etruscans) literally invented the Fasces, the symbol of fascism. And monarchies aren't exactly much better, they just have worse fashion sense.

>>53958229
Well they wouldn't actively go out to kill you, but they'd probably butcher you when they could at a casual rate and take the survivors as slaves.

Compared to that the chance for integration is pretty damn good.

>>53957908
>the right to assimilate or die
The Romans weren't that intense about that kind of thing. They were pretty much content to let local rulers and customs stay where they were as long as they paid their taxes and the locals weren't killing Romans and/or the garrison. Groups like the Jews only really got the short end of the stick because they wouldn't stop trying to win their independence and they were rather good at killing the local garrisons.

File: guy ruins a butt thread.png (350KB, 771x308px) Image search: [Google]

350KB, 771x308px

/tg/ needs a way to subtly encourage anal sex with other men and wearing skirts but not feel gay about it

>>53958264
>Buddhists literally invented the nazi symbol

>>53958229
>realistically very few successful empires were "just die" because up until the industrial age exterminating an entire ethnic group is time consuming and really not worth the effort.
are you stupid?
WHAT IS FUCKING GAUL?
entire peoples of gaul,germany exterminated.
OR CARTHAGE?
OR x group who offended the romans and their allies?
don't talk out of your ass

>>53958264
>they invented a symbol of leadership that the duce used
>this makes them fascist

>And monarchies aren't exactly much better, they just have worse fashion sense.
So the only no fascist form of government is republican then.
good to know burgerlander
what?

>>53958264
Creating the symbol of something bad people used later isn't exactly a good criticism, or did the Indians & Asians who used the Swastika suddenly terrible because the Nazi's used that later?

>>53958297
>german occultists appropriating an asian symbol is exactly the same as italians using an italian symbol of governmental power to represent governmental power

File: Roman Empire (300 a.d.).jpg (431KB, 1500x1116px) Image search: [Google]

431KB, 1500x1116px

>>53958301
>WHAT IS FUCKING GAUL?
>entire peoples of gaul,germany exterminated.
They weren't exterminated, they were assimilated. Did you think the Saxon people were exterminated and replaced with Normans, or that the Chinese were exterminated and replaced with Mongols?
>OR CARTHAGE?
You do know that Roman Carthage was one of the largest cities in Roman North Africa, up until the fall of Rome and the Vandals, right? The legends of "salting" carthage are just that, legends.
>OR x group who offended the romans and their allies?
name some x groups that were utterly annihilated.

>>53958329
The nazis also had uniforms and badges, clearly the people who invented those things are also suddenly somehow responsible in anyway for their actions too.

>>53958301
>criticizing another form of absolutist authoritarian rule is the same as calling it fascism!

>>53958351
The fasces has always represented submission of the individual to the State

>>53958380
Or more accurately, the power of centralized, absolute, authoritarian rule

>thread about why Rome is cool in the context of traditional games
>some retard has to sperg about how bad they were in real life and call posters fascist
Pure autism.

>>53958329
Mussolini's Italian fascists had about as much in common with Imperial Rome as Hitler had with the ancient indo-european tribes who invented the swastika, i.e. nothing at all. But enough replying to bait.

>>53958282
Like which of Rome's contemporaries? Persia was as multiethnic/multicultural as they come, and the Han would literally pay you in horses and princesses to fuck off rather than deal with you. I don't know what the axumite empire was doing but if they actually exterminated a whole ethnic group I'm sure we would have heard about it from /pol/.

>>53958380
Okay and? Rome leaned more towards the Authoritarian end of the political compass then the Libertarian one.

Look, I like Rome and think it was a good thing for the world, but I also think it wasn't perfect and that there are valid critiques of it. This doesn't mean going "THEY HAD SYMBOLS THAT LOOKED LIKE THE NAZIS AND VAGUE IDEOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES!!!" is exactly a good one.

>>53958348
>They weren't exterminated, they were assimilated.
you are objectively wrong.
1/3 of all different gualic peoples were destoried.
I believe the vernetity, Atuatuci,Ebrurones and quite a lot of arverrni were killed alonge with 3 other german tribes and a couple others i don't have a companion with me.

>>53958396
Not necessarily. It's most commonly used nowadays as a symbol by the United States government, which has, at least in theory, a great deal of checks and balances with limitations of power.

>>53958430
>1/3 of all different gualic peoples were destoried.
The leaders died and they were absorbed into other gallic tribes or under Roman rule. Or did you think the Romans killed literally all the gauls in Roman Gaul and replaced them with Romans like some proto-lebensraum?

Then again, given the rest of the comment, I wouldn't be surprised if you did.

>I believe the vernetity, Atuatuci,Ebrurones and quite a lot of arverrni were killed alonge with 3 other german tribes
Oh wow a whole tribe, what is that, 3000 people? The leaders were killed and the rest of the tribes found new buddies to stick around with.

>>53958425
You know what, you're right. I derailed the thread. I'm hopped up on caffeine and enjoy political debates, and I jumped at this. How about this: I personally think Rome is better as a dystopian setting than the noblebright 'Fantasy America' it's sometimes thought of as.

>>53957512

The continuity during the empire is pretty amazing.

If anyone wants a good recent history, SPQR by Mary Beard is a solid read. It certainly dispelled some of the myths I had understood about the nature of how power was exercised in the Roman empire.

>>53958380
No, it represented justice, i.e. the courts. It was used by the Roman bureaucracy. That is only "submission to the State" if you are full Ron Paul 2012 ancap meme.
Rome had a very large influence on successor states, which is why you see fasces in various heraldry around the world.

>>53958493
I disagree with your assessment but I am willing to admit that there are fairly valid ideological viewpoints that can result in that and I respect your maturity in realizing your previous posts were in the wrong.

>>53958493
>I'm hopped up on caffeine and enjoy political debates
That's fine, but take it to another board. This isn't the place for that sort of discussion.

I personally prefer the more insidious politicking side of Rome as well.

>>53957512
>What's cool about Roman empire?
Nothing, every thing went wrong after the end of the the Republic

>>53958493
I don't think the Romans were evil and all but it's difficult to use an accurate Roman Empire and the Medieval Ages in a realistic way without making them almost dystopian by how much of a relative shithole they are for most people.
It's like trying to do a noblebright historically accurate victorian era, most time periods are pretty bleak and the modern times in first world countries are maybe the only objectively decent societies with most people having decent life and all.

>>53958465
cesear claims them to be i think 50,000, 30,000, 45,000 and with the 3 germans about 700,000 but those who could not be killed scattered.

>they killed whole ethnic groups of people
>wow that's not enough people while europes population was much lower than it is now
no with Ebrurones i know they were completely exterminated, according to the sources.
the others much the same.

there were peoples who had their leaders killed and the rest sold in the slavery

>>53958597
So the Romans did bad things in your opinion. Who fucking cares? This thread is about what makes Rome cool, not "did the Romans do anything wrong".

>>53958631
there was a claim that the romans didn't exterminate people.
I like rome personally but the idea is wrong.
also mithridates did nothing wrong

>>53958597
>wow European populations were so low that they mattered more
>oh but Caesar fought 300,000 of them
Yeah no. Leaders killed and captives sold into slavery, sure, but the destruction of the tribe does not necessarily indicate the complete destruction of its culture or people by any stretch of the imagination. Phoenicia did not end with the razing of tyre, and the defeat of the Celts in the British Isles hardly meant the end of Celtic culture.

>>53958690
He said that Rome preferred to assimilate but was willing wipe out people if they resisted. That's generally true. He never said it didn't happen.

File: Hagia-Sophia-cross section.jpg (79KB, 800x383px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 800x383px

>>53957512
The architecture.

>>53957512

Roman public toilets had no stalls. You had to look right into the eyes of the guy across from you as you both plunked down a load.

>>53957512
Nubile slave boys

>>53958493
>>I personally think Rome is better as a dystopian setting than the noblebright 'Fantasy America' it's sometimes thought of as.

I think the point is that when compared to the standards of the era, Rome was as close to 'Fantasy America' as they ever got.

There is a reason why so much of our civilization is based on the Greco-Roman world.

Nothing is great about the "Roman empire." If any of you are fucking marks for Roman you need to kill yourselves for being fans of the second coming of John Cena and you probably also fucking love that stupid comedy flippy shit too. About the only good thing about you is that you're the kind of wrestling fan that drives Jim Cornette into paroxysms of asshurt rage and maybe it'll give that old hillbilly yelling at clouds a heart attack.

>>53958584
I don't know if I'd call them evil, but they were definitely brutal, xenophobic and bloodthirsty. It doesn't a whole lot to change the Rome analogue into something evil.

Or something good, if you're willing to focus only on the good stuff.

File: nero.jpg (66KB, 900x785px)

66KB, 900x785px

>>53957512
best seiba

>>53958839
begone Tiberius

>>53958925

Look at this fuggen butthurt Allemanian right here. John Cena owns, The Roman Empire owns. Deal.

>>53958970
Ave Imperator Cena, the Unseen Princeps

There's a certain allure to being efficient magnificent bastards, which is what the romans were. They were assholes, but highly effective ones, who at their best embodied industry and adaptiveness and at their worst the glacial hedonistic snobbery of the world's most decadent and stratified empire. We see very compelling, very positive traits next to extremely negative ones, as well as frankly rediculous persistence

>>53957612
IV V

>>53958069
is that lion thing true?

File: Map_of_the_Legal_systems_of_the_world_(en).png (874KB, 3564x1870px) Image search: [Google]

874KB, 3564x1870px

>>53958196
European law, maybe.

English Common Law developed independently.

>>53960227
What's happening in Louisiana there?

File: Louisiana_Purchase.png (230KB, 800x566px)

230KB, 800x566px

>>53960291
The Napoleanic N should be a giveaway.

File: ryse-glott1.jpg (944KB, 1500x1325px)

944KB, 1500x1325px

Any good sources to read up on Roman slavery? Developing !Roman empire for my setting and add some darker shades to it, one of the metaplots should be slavery abolition development.

>>53958497
Thanks, the book seems interesting so far.

>>53960322
How the hell did the US lose that one bit of alberta and saskatchewan? Lack of interest?

>>53960343 #
We traded it to the UK for parts of Minnesota, the Dakotas, and Montanna.
Also a whole bunch of other shit was agreemed on. Treaty of 1818.

>>53958301

1/10, I replied.

File: 1490594288578.jpg (84KB, 1280x720px)

84KB, 1280x720px

>>53958301
>WHAT IS FUCKING GAUL?
You honestly think Gaul was exterminated? The people who are genetically closest to the French are the English and vice versa. Not because of the Norman invasion (which, though massive in cultural scope, was negligible in demographic scope) but because both the English and the French are overwhelmingly the pre-Roman Celts on a genetic level. They just got SAXON'D and FRANK'D hard.

>>53960227
>English Common Law developed independently.
Correct. Except for the part where you're horrible wrong holy shit nigger. Common Law did base itself on Roman law, to the point where they way Torts are treated in Common Law (various Torts have various corresponding legal actions) is closer to Roman Law than the way Civil Law treats them (there's one overarching "Tort").

The birth of Common Law did have its root in Saxon tribal law, but even before civil law had become a thing it had already been crossfertilized by Roman law. Claiming that Common Law in its modern incarnation developed independently from Roman law is a downright falsehood that evolved from either sheer ignorance or the need to push for an exceptionalist narrative.

>>53958196
I think the sort of harsh punishment people used to mete out comes, in part, from the near total lack of investigative powers. For the vast majority of history, you either caught someone redhanded, or you didn't catch them at all. And criminal investigation was basically the same as rumour. Of course, people did build functioning courts of law on top of that, to guide pure, raw mob justice into some semblance of reason.

But when you look at a place like Africa, and you still have mob justice based on rumours, and police forces that just blanket arrest people near the scene of the crime.

We can afford to be kind because we will get our man. Even the knowledge alone seems to mellow people out on crime and punishment.

>>53958493
I'm glad you realized this, but holy shit your points are retarded and ethnocentric to a fault.

>>53958196
>>53962036
You guys also forget that harsh punishment was the only means available to societies at the time. Let's look at petty theft for example, how do we solve it today? You get a fine or you're forced to do community work or you go to therapy, and at worst you're imprisoned. Let's investigate the problem with all of these in Roman society.

>Fine
Romans already had those for certain situations (though those mostly took the form of damages to be paid to a private party you had injured).

>Community work
Requires a massive administrative body to back all of this up, which the Romans simply did not have despite being brilliant administrators.

>Therapy
Psychology wasn't even in its infancy at the time. Philosophers debated about the human condition and how to create good citizens, but this was psychology in the same way alchemy is chemistry.

>Imprisoned
Again, requires an administrative body and prison complexes that simply did not exist at the time.

That leaves you with very limited options, like public shaming or the cutting off of hands. I'm by no means a moral relativist, and I believe that something that was morally wrong back then is still morally wrong today, but calling the system cruel is anachronistic: the less intrusive alternatives weren't available to them (but there's a small beam of light here: Roman citizens were at least protected from the death penalty).

This is why, when we see cruel practices in historical societies, we must always ask ourselves "what were the alternatives?". [

>>53962130
Sharia law is a problem because it utterly ignores this. It dictates that a thief must have his right hand cut off on the first offense, his left foot on the second, his left hand on the third, his right foot on the fourth, and if he somehow manages to steal a fifth time he's put to death. Reasonable enough for 7th century Arabia [a tribal part of the world where justice was difficult to enforce and had shit for infrastructure], but in modern society it has no place because we have less intrusive means available and can enforce them. The problem is that Sharia is defined mostly in the Qu'ran: the direct, clear, timeless, eternal and indisputable word of God. It is therefore not even comparable to Deuteronomy or any other vaguely contemporary sources of law in the Ancient Near East. The problem with Sharia law is that it keeps promoting these cruel punishments even in times and environments were less intrusive alternatives are easily and readily available.

It existed for a massively long time and has an amazing history. What the fuck do you mean? Every god damn thing is cool about the Roman Empire.

>>53962130
The Romans also practiced slavery as a punishment, and that could be seen as their equivalent of our modern prison system. The people involved were captive and guarded, but they were put to work because leaving a healthy man sitting on his ass in a furnished room would have looked like the opposite of punishment to Romans and other historical people. It even endures to this day, and there are people alive in the Western world who can recall "hard labour" being a legit punishment, just the way it was for the Romans.

>>53962158
Well, that comes down to the naturally conservative bent of organized religion, which in Islam is buoyed on by the literal word of God saying that ultraconservatism is a good thing, because His word is infallible and has already been written down.

For the staunch Muslim effectiveness does not matter. Adherence to doctrine does.

ITT: a guy who doesn't know what fascism is gets a bunch of (you)s

>>53957512
>Empire
It's just a less cool version of the republic.

>>53957512
Sex, Olives, primoridal shitposting, and working toilets.

File: 1419647209863.png (1MB, 1440x810px)

1MB, 1440x810px

>>53962584
>Empire
>Republic

This shit annoys me the most. The word "Empire" comes from the Latin "Imperium", which is more or less the concept referring to any kind of holding public authority. Caesar and Augustus were lifelong rulers, but refused to be referred to as king and refused any association with the institution of kingship (IIRC during some festival Marc Anthony even publically offered him a crown, and Caesar made a huge deal out of refusing said crown). Because Caesar and Augustus were neither king nor consul, they were referred to by either their family name (Caesar, which in German evolved into Kaiser and in Russian to Czar) or merely as imperator (person who holds imperium, in French it became empereur and in English emperor). An emperor is effectively a "republican monarch" of sorts.

What fucks my shit up is that there's not only a strict dichotomy in the mind of modern man between the republic and the empire (until Diocletian all emperors had at the very least republican pretenses, and according to some these republican pretenses even persisted in the East Roman Empire after the fall of the West), but also that fucking everything is an empire. The Chinese, the Aztecs, the Arabs... it's like "Emperor" now means "Super-king". Except the term is also applied to pitiful rulers of fuck-all like Japan. And then there are empires without emperors. The Malinese king unites some tribes? Empire! Some Europeans kill those tribes and force the survivors to pay tribute? Empire!

The only non-Roman emperors were the two Napoleons and the only non-Roman empire was France, prove me wrong.

>>53962779
Using your own rationale for Napoleon you can include Charles magne in the equation and his domain as emperor's and empire.
Of course the Russian empire was a thing too and a couple of others.
Dumbass

>>53962857
>Using your own rationale for Napoleon you can include Charles magne in the equation
Explain the republican nature of Charlemagne's rule.
>Of course the Russian empire was a thing too and a couple of others.
Explain the republican nature of the Russian czars.

Napoleon effectively copypasted Augustus, on the other hand, to the point where the French Revolution can be summarized as Roman history on fastforward.

>>53957574
This is largely ahistorical wank that is mostly the result of Renaissance poets trying to come up with justifications for why they hate their dads and the centuries they associated with them (with the real reason being that no dad ever wants their son to grow up to be a poet as their primary occupation).

The Middle Ages saw enormous technological advances that often get overlooked in order to try and maintain a largely debunked image of "The Dark Ages", and while the decentralization did mean that enormous endeavors no longer could be funded, it also meant that the populace that the Empire essentially exploited no longer had to fund those endeavors.

History is a long process, with each step being important, and the Fall of Rome was a necessary part of what lead Europe into the Renaissance and eventually into Modernity.

Don't get me wrong though. Roads are great.

>>53957641

I'd admit yer a good troll, but, tell me of a single people who had a greater impact on Europe (and by extension, Euro colonies as the US). In what alphabet are we writing, my man?

Rome became a stratocracy, but it wasn't only one. "Soldiers are brutal, uncivilized and a sad necessity", as the Romans themselves said: your position reeks of movie history instead of a proper appreciation of a culture alien to yours (their approach to class, death and rights was a tad different, but remember that in Britan it was legal to sell your wife until two centuries ago and that servitude was slavery in all but name).

Plus Rome is cool.

>>53957908
>>53958069

Lol. Venetian nobles routinely went out hunting "peasants" with rifles in the 1700s, Japanese nobility had the right of life and death on the lower classes. Past societies were brutal and direct, whaddaya expect? Rome was almost civilized in that regard.

But you are all bait.

>>53958493
kys

>>53957512
Tower shields.

>>53962939
the romans did have a whole of innovations not seen till the late renaissance

like domes, concrete, aqueducts, roads, large cities, hot and cold water, indoor plumbing, public bathes, the onager, and a senate

the dark ages were advanced and continued to advance, and were nowhere as primitive as they were seen today, they still didnt match the romans in so many technological advancements

>>53962779
>(IIRC during some festival Marc Anthony even publically offered him a crown, and Caesar made a huge deal out of refusing said crown)
And doing that was almost certainly just a massive public relations stunt to smooth over people who thought Caesar was setting himself up as a king, considering Antony and Caesar were allies.

>>53962939
Yeah, the whole "master architects and engineers" seems particularly wanky, given that Medieval Europeans far surpassed the Romans in those areas. Roman technology, though thoroughly practical, was relatively stagnant. That was par for the course during Roman times, but it's not like they really stood out or anything. The things the Romans did were also done by their contemporaries, and the Romans openly acknowledge did, and learned from it. Not that they were stupid, not by any means, but they're generally not known for their mastery of those disciplines.

>>53964447
aqueducts, roads, bridges, and sanitation they had over most of the medieval world

>>53964437
Of note is that Augustus did it too. In the Res Gestae he makes a big deal out of never holding power in any one office that exceeded his fellow officials, but conveniently people liked him enough that they didn't have any problem with him holding half a dozen different offices with different powers, and their combination DID make him functionally an absolute ruler, especially since the legions all answered to him.

About the only office that he had real trouble getting was the Chief Priest of Rome, because Lepidus held that one and he refused to retire. So Augustus had to wait until the guy FINALLY kicked the bucket.

>>53957512
For some reason I just read 'What's cool about Roman vampires?'

>>53964368
>medieval people didn't have catapults

Okey dokey.

>>53964472
I'm pretty sure Medieval people built bridges, Anon. And the fact that Medieval people didn't build something very often (because they definitely did build aqueducts) doesn't mean they couldn't.

>>53964712
the onager was more powerful than the medieval one

they would rather use the roman ones, which are still in use today, and would not exceed roman design until the enlightenment

>>53960227
>English X developed independently.
The Romans, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, Franks and Normans would like to have a word with you.

>>53957512
If you didn't like what was happening in the senate you could just get a and together and murder the fucker proposing it, so that guy would have to have his own gang protecting him and a political street war would ensue that couldn't be stopped because Rome had no police force and soldiers under arms weren't allowed in the city. After you'd killed that fucker his friends could sue you, but you could get out of that if you were really really good at talking.

>>53964368
>domes

In use extensively in both the Eastern Med' and in Spain.

>concrete

That fell out of use not because of technique, but cost and time.

>aqueducts

Those were being made.

>Large Cities

That's because of political and economic reasons, not technology(nor should you consider it an innovation)

>Hot and cold water

Nigga, bathhouses were extremely popular in European cities and bathing was more common among the nobility after the fall of room than before

>indoor plumbing

See above.

>Public bathes

Again, actually really popular.

>onager

Nigga

>Senate

That wasn't even an innovation that the Romans made themselves, nor did Republican governments suddenly vanish.

2/10

>>53964437
Naturally, all rulers have to engage in PR to some degree or another. But that doesn't change that an emperor in the Roman style at the very least had the pretense of being a semi-republican leader. The point is that the term 'emperor' shouldn't be applied as carelessly as it is in the modern English language. It now means nothing.

>>53967520
>That wasn't even an innovation that the Romans made themselves
Who did Senates before the Romans then?

>>53968466
Carthage had a senate before Rome. Something that the Romans were always loathe to admit.

>>53960341

It's not strictly historical, but you could get a lot from the Starz Spartacus series. Especially the first season and the prequel season. The Romans in that were pretty shitty to their slaves most of the time.

File: 1495658773167.jpg (26KB, 500x441px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 500x441px

>>53958826

File: ed7.jpg (45KB, 596x628px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 596x628px

>>53958826
>The country that shites together, fights together

This thread belongs on /his/, its not /tg/ related

File: nero4.jpg (662KB, 732x1000px)

662KB, 732x1000px

>>53972401
there I fixed it

File: romans testudo.jpg (53KB, 624x245px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 624x245px

>>53957512

File: 1377200945023.jpg (17KB, 250x250px)

17KB, 250x250px

>>53962939
>History is a long process, with each step being important, and the Fall of Rome was a necessary part of what lead Europe into the Renaissance and eventually into Modernity.
>Anno MMXVII
>being a linearist

File: SnowStug.jpg (790KB, 1052x646px)

790KB, 1052x646px

>>53958130
>i guess monarchies are fascist too
Rome actually is pretty fascist, along with the Chinese Empires and Napoleonic Empire.

File: 1401080469567.jpg (4MB, 1920x1080px)

4MB, 1920x1080px

>>53957512
History major, am very much a romaboo.

Why do I love Rome? when i talk in my papers, it is because of the unique things the empire/republic introduced into the world ahead of their time. Which lead to their dominance. if they had arrived later in time, they may have lasted and conquered much more IMO.

Total war, Plumbing, Aqueducts, Professional military, new philosophies, architecture achievements that only recently were surpassed (hyper accurate stone works for example).

Larger than life "characters" Julius Ceasar, Scipio Africannus, Pompey, Crassus, Cicero, plutarch, Seneca, justinian, marcus Aurelius, Tiberius, Hadrian, Constantine, Agustus, Gaius Marius, Spartacus, Trajan, Nero, and more

The Roman aesthetic is cool, utilitarian with flare, the roman mindset to issues. "If it's good, use it" archers causing issues? well let's make some, cavalry flanking and can't be caught? let's make some. Phalanxes not mobile enough? let's try maniples. Cavalry archers causing issues? Let's Hire some. Those ships better than ours? let's make some. That general defeating our armies? Let's not fight him.

Rome's impact is something that can be felt throughout ALL European countries, is your country west of the Rhine? then Rome helped forge it and your language as well, as more likely than not Latin is your language's base. italian? the peasants latin Spanish? Espana latin. French? western latin. English? a abomination of latin, french, and germanic.

I've can and have written papers on Rome. I love rome and as a historian it just fills me with joy to discover more about it/them.

>>53969280
Carthage must be destroyed!

>>53957908
>>53958069
>>53958069
literally every single ancient civilization

File: f6ad90217ad315536a593b6bff9fa9d4.jpg (358KB, 1920x1131px)

358KB, 1920x1131px

>>53960341
If you want a TL;DR of Roman Slavery, There were some distinct differences to most "traditional" slavery
1. roman slaves could own property, make money and even buy their freedom
2. while they were not protected as persons under the law, there were several laws for them under property laws.
3. a good amount of slaves in the empire/republic were skilled workers, secrataries, accountants, physicians were all slaves
4. later on they even had certain rights under law, and all slaves became citizens once they were either freed or bought their freedom.
5. a significant amount of slaves were actually indentured servants as punishment for certain crimes, and their slaver wasn't permanent.
6. they gained a large amount of their slaves either from warfare or piracy, mostly from greece for the skilled slaves.

reading material
>Mikhail Rostovtzev, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire
>Hopkins, Keith. Conquerors and Slaves: Sociological Studies in Roman History.
>Finley, Moses I Slavery in classical Antiquity. Views and controversies.

File: d0ab919f7794197a3f29fe00b7a35d0d.jpg (63KB, 600x614px)

63KB, 600x614px

>>53976527
Ave Roma brother! those vile Carthaginians must be put in their place

>>53976527
Go to bed, Cato.

>>53976886
Thanks for the detailed response anon.

File: images (5).jpg (25KB, 513x287px)

25KB, 513x287px

>>53958826
Having been to one in Ostia Antica, yeah it's pretty much an big open air "room" with a marble bench/seat running around the wall with ass grooves and holes. With water (supposedly) running in the trench underneath it.

>>53958142

Actually they used to brand peoples faces with the word "Property" which is why runaway slaves used to tie bandanas around their foreheads to hide their branding. The temples of Asclepius have been found with the most numerous plea from written prayers was "Please god remove these brands from my face."

The myth that you are talking about is due to rich Romans writing history and painting a picture that all slaves are like the House Slaves of the South, yet they made up a tiny proportion of the total.

They rarely talked about the Vocal Agricultural Impliments (Roman name for field slaves) who wore huge wooden stocks that made them unable to eat the food they harvested or the poor bastards thrown into mines like the Arsenic pits of Sandarakurgion Dag to die in a few months of total darkness.

The slave Markets at Delos sold 100, 000 slaves a day at their height.

If you want cool look into the Lemuria festival or the almost unknown Devocatio ritual performed by the Roman Consul and priests on cities that have rebelled or enemy cities that are to be destroyed.

>>53976886
>physicians were all slaves
Not all physicians were slaves, if that's what you're implying.

>>53957512

To explain the Devocatio. It was an ancient Italian ritual to steal gods and curse cities. Similar to the Assyrians, Babylonians and Incas stealing statues of gods and putting them in subordinate positions in the capital under the states Chief god.

The Consul assembles with highest ranking priests with sunset behind him within sight of the city walls.

He begins to implore the city's guardian deity to abandon the doomed city and he will ensure that a temple is built in Rome to house it

Cleared of protection the Roman Consul summons the unquiet spirits of the dead, the dark and terrible shades of the underworld and all forms of vile beings from beneath the earth to infest the city's holy grounds, haunt its alleyways and stalk its inhabitants.

As his shadow lengthens and moves towards the city walls he plunges his hand into the soft earth and pulls a rock from beneath.

The Consul speaks the final curse condemning the city to eternal ruin and hurls the stone towards the city wall. The next day the Legion begins the assault on the walls.

>>53976504

>Pompey

Bah Lucullus never gets the credit he deserves while that Triumph hog got the glory for other people work (except the pirates thing which was strategically excellent).

>>53958291

In Rome its only gay if you're not on top. Old Julius Caesar was known as the Queen of Bithynia before he became dictator cos he took it up the ass from king Nikomedes IV of Bithynia when he was 17.

>>53958348

>Name nations the Romans annihilated

Dacians
Utterly wiped from the face of the earth.

Lusitanians
All their men were massacred and their women and children sold into slavery during peace talks with the Roman Consul.

Cantabrians
Exterminated to the last man who sang until his death surrounded by his crucified comrades, while Augustus watched.

Helliopolitae
Entire cities poisoned by hellebore put in the Aquaducts by the order of Manius Aqullius to the horror of the Senate who tried him for unRoman actions in war, but he was loaded by then and bribed his way out of conviction.

Roman Carthage was rebuilt a century after the original was destroyed.
Gaius Gracchus was murdered for (among other things) attempting to establish a colony on Carthages ruins.

>>53962779
You do realize words change meaning over time, right? And that trying to fight changes in language makes you look like a jackass who thinks he's smarter than he actually is. Especially when these changes happened centuries ago.

>>53957641

Let me guess. Your game's greatest empire is progressive socialist utopia that features queers and 5 different genders.

Every great empire was built on suffering of others. You can thank sweatshops in china for that PC or tablet you are currently using for shitposting.

>>53958762
mein neger

>>53960227
I didn't know the ocean was Jewish. Neat.

>>53963025
>Venetian nobles routinely went out hunting "peasants" with rifles in the 1700s

Bullshit

Rome gave us the foundation of modern laws, politics, architecture, civil engineering, etc

The idea that the burden of proof is on the accuser is a Roman concept, before you had to prove the negative - which is philosophically impossible.

Fucking ROADS. Roads were a major asset for military, trade, and connecting the Empire together.

Hell, most of the major cities in Europe were built on the ruins of Roman cities.

>>53976504
I can already tell you're a shit historian

>>53980899
>The slave Markets at Delos sold 100, 000 slaves a day at their height

Literally impossible. I'll assume you mean a thousand or something, and even that would be seriously pushing my credulity.

>>53982256

>at their height
During the late Roman Republic the markets at Delos were insanely busy due to the huge influx of people enslaved from the rampant Mediterranean piracy being funneled there.

Non-Roman citizens were fair game to be captured and sold to the enourmous Latifundia of the Patrician class and the beqeathal of Asia to the Roman Senate allowed the Roman Tax Farmers to run rampant across the most populous cities in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Only under Pompey later did they crack down on pirates and under Augustus did protection for slaves come into law.

>>53961828
Weren't the British more related to the basque, from pre-celt times?

File: 1417127731019.jpg (45KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 640x480px

>>53981139
>tfw you take a dick up the ass ONCE and everyone calls you a faggot even after you become dictator for life

File: 1489160630803.png (242KB, 1000x1000px)

242KB, 1000x1000px

>>53976886
>2. while they were not protected as persons under the law, there were several laws for them under property laws.
I've read (part of) Gaius' Digests, and that protection isn't really all it's cracked up to be. Not only does it have some incredibly weird clauses (it's perfectly fine to castrate another man's boy slave if he's underage for example, because it doesn't "decrease his value" in the same way castrating an adult male slave would), but all punishments for mutilating or killing slaves were paying damages to the owner. Sure, the prices of the damages could vary (kill some random-ass slave and you just have to pay his owner the price of a regular slave, kill a slave who happens to be the main flutist in a band and you have to pay the owner the value of the entire slave band), but the only reason you weren't killed as a slave was because other Roman citizens didn't want to pay your owner an amount of money that could potentially bankrupt them.

>and all slaves became citizens once they were either freed or bought their freedom.
I admit that in this regard I know nothing, but wasn't there a category of Freemen that existed between slaves on the one hand and Pregrines/citizens on the other? Wasn't that the default status a slave who bought his freedom gained? Or does that differ per time period?

>>53981575
>sweatshops
>suffering
Leftist detected

>>53981209
>Dacians
>Utterly wiped from the face of the earth
which is why "Free Dacians" were still around to get wiped out by the huns, right?
>The latest secure mention of the Free Dacians in the ancient sources is Constantine I's acclamation as Dacicus Maximus in 336. For the year 381, the Byzantine chronicler Zosimus records an invasion over the Danube by a barbarian coalition of Huns, Scirii and what he terms Karpodakai, or Carpo-Dacians.[34]

>Lusitanians
>All their men were massacred and their women and children sold into slavery during peace talks with the Roman Consul.
Wow, without any men, women or children one wonders how the Lusitanians literally became citizens.
>After the death of Viriatus, the Lusitanians kept fighting under the leadership of Tautalus (Greek: Τάυταλος), but gradually acquired Roman culture and language; the Lusitanian cities, in a manner similar to those of the rest of the Romanised Iberian peninsula, eventually gained the status of "Citizens of

>Cantabrians
>Exterminated to the last man who sang until his death surrounded by his crucified comrades, while Augustus watched.
So I imagine it was their undead reanimated bodies that were fighting for the Romans decades later?
>The Cantabri did not lose their warrior skills either, providing auxiliary troops (Auxilia) to the Roman Imperial army for decades and these troops participated in Emperor Claudius' invasion of Britain in AD 43–60.
>Roman Carthage was rebuilt a century after the original was destroyed.
And? The punic peoples did not cease to exist in the meantime, living in Utica among other North African cities under Roman Rule.

Come on, dude, literally anybody could google this shit and find out that you were pulling it straight out of your ass.

>>53958925
Go home, /wooo/, you're drunk.

>>53982503
And 100,000 slaves a day is 26 fucking million people, assuming they do five days a week for a year.

Fuck outta here.

>>53982735

>Free Dacians
Zosimus is widely regarded as an unreliable chronicler and has been criticised by one scholar as having "an unsurpassable claim to be regarded as the worst of all the extant Greek historians of the Roman Empire...it would be tedious to catalogue all the instances where this historian has falsely transcribed names, not to mention his confusion of events... [36]

I can Wiki too.

>Lusitania
Lusitania was a confederacy of tribes. The Romans rarely distinguished every small tribe in a confederacy.

>Cantabrians
If you try to wipe out people and some escape into the mountains is that due to mercy?

I see you never mentioned the Heliopolitae who were utterly wiped out for rejecting slavery and brutal taxation.

>>53983085

>At their height i.e. at their greatest extent

I never said it was a consistent number. It was the most sold in a day at the slave markets greatest extent.

The Romans bragged about gaining 110,000 slaves from the destruction of Molossia. That was 1/3rd of the nation of Epirus, in one campaign.

>>53982186
Sea trade is lucrative.

>>53982585
As they should.

>>53983299
>Zosimus is widely regarded as an unreliable chronicler
Funny how you deliberately deleted the part that says [citation needed] to that. Regardless, you could also read the rest of the article you wiki'd.
>Two panels of Trajan's Column depict lines of Dacian peasants leaving with their families and animals at the end of each war.[5]
>Free Dacians are reported to have invaded and ravaged the Roman province in 214 and 218.[10][11] Several emperors after Trajan, as late as AD 336, assumed the victory title of Dacicus Maximus (" Grand Dacian "):
>In 180, the emperor Commodus, whose reign lasted from 180 to 192, is recorded as having admitted 12,000 "neighbouring Daci", who had been driven out of their own territory by hostile tribes, for settlement in the Roman province.[21]
Wow it sure sounds like they got wiped off teh face of the earth.

>Lusitania was a confederacy of tribes. The Romans rarely distinguished every small tribe in a confederacy.
>The Romans rarely distinguished every small tribe in a confederacy.
Which reinforces my fucking point that your stupid
>All their men were massacred and their women and children sold into slavery
line is bullshit? One tribe in the confederation got killed and suddenly you're arguing everybody in the confederation got wiped out?

>If you try to wipe out people and some escape into the mountains is that due to mercy?
Who said a single thing about "escaping into the mountains?" They became part of Rome and became Roman auxiliaries, they didn't get "wiped out" by any definition of the word. See the literal part of the article that says "Romanization."
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantabri#Romanization

>I see you never mentioned the Heliopolitae who were utterly wiped out for rejecting slavery and brutal taxation.
Because I have no idea where you pulled that out of or what you're talking about. Heliopolis continued to exist into Roman times, and I don't even know what war you pulled out of your ass.

>>53962130

> No community work
> No prisons

What is slavery

>>53983527

The first part is opinion but the latter half is a direct citation. Its funny you mention citation needed as that article is full of it.
That article 'Free Dacians' is full of the words "implies", "supposedly" and reeks of the propaganda churned out by Ceasescu.

If someone declares the Gauls were destroyed by Julius Caesar they would be partially true but incorrect. If someone said Caesar destroyed the Veneti tribe of northwestern Gaul they would be true. The difference between Julius Caesar and Servius Sulpicius Galba was Caesar actually recorded his campaign and the people he fought against in great detail so we can say that.

Augustus never declared victory over the Cantabrians and refused to declare a triumph, they continued to station two legions there for 70 years.

I admit I had embellished the language a bit, but wiping out peoples is quite difficult, though the intent is equivocal to the act. Just because they were not successful does not mean they were paragons of civilisation.

The Heliopolitae were not a state, but a movement led by a philosopher called Blossius and a Attalid royal called Aristonicus within Asia Minor against Roman domination. Heliopolis (not the Egyptian one) was an idealized state. It never existed and definitely could not exist under Roman rule.

Manius Aquilius was reprimanded by the Senate for destroying entire cities by poisoning the water supplies with a plant called Hellebore.

His son was captured and executed by Mithridates Eupator of Pontus by pouring gold down his throat after Manius junior purposely scuppered negotiations between Pontus and Bithynia to start a war so he could enrich himself.

His attitude encapsulated the late Roman Republican mindset and the fact that Rome was so tone deaf with how the Asiatic people has suffered under Manius Aquilius Senior led directly to the Asian Vespers.

>>53984253
>That article 'Free Dacians' is full of the words "implies", "supposedly" and reeks of the propaganda churned out by Ceasescu.
And the "direct citations" you mention discussing the Free Dacians lead to a great many sources that are far more contemporary and less roman than Ceausescu.

>Augustus never declared victory over the Cantabrians and refused to declare a triumph, they continued to station two legions there for 70 years.
And again, others served as auxiliaries with the Roman Legions. Which goes to show that Rome did not pursue the Cantabri with the genocidal intent you ascribe to them.
>though the intent is equivocal to the act.
Most of the peoples you have mentioned in this and past posted eventually became at least partially Romanized. If the intent to destroy was really there they would not have been permitted this.
>Heliopolis (not the Egyptian one)
Well pardon me for not making the distinction between the pretensions of some philosopher and an actual city where people who could reasonably name themselves Heliopolitae might have lived.
Regardless, I would not fault the Romans for razing/enslaving a nation that actively revolted against roman rule. While they were taxed and slavery existed, taxation and slavery were not novel concepts to the aegean, which in general was treated lightly by the Romans after annexation.
>Manius Aquilius was reprimanded by the Senate for destroying entire cities by poisoning the water supplies with a plant called Hellebore.

So why is this a testimony against Rome if its government attempted (however unsuccessfully) attempted to reprimand someone for excessive brutality?
>the fact that Rome was so tone deaf with how the Asiatic people has suffered under Manius Aquilius Senior led directly to the Asian Vespers.
Okay sure, but the Romans being harsh and uncaring conquerors is a goalpost moved far beyond your original argument that the Romans were regularly committing genocide.

>>53984452
>less roman
*less romanian.

>>53984452

>Less Romanian
I don't know if I would trust a dictators opinion on history over a contemporary scholar. At least historians consider critics rather than have them shot.

>And again, others served as auxiliaries with the Roman Legions. Which goes to show that Rome did not pursue the Cantabri with the genocidal intent you ascribe to them
Vercingetorix, Arminius and the entire Socii all served in the Roman army before they rebelled against Rome. It does not speak of some awesome civilizing power. There was just no one left to resist them.
They made a desert you call it peace. How many years does it take to recover from demographic disasters?

Many nations that fought against Rome were once "Friends of Rome," such as Bithynia, Rhodes, Pontus, the Aeudi Confederacy, Athens, Pergamon and I could go on. They were treated with such disdain and hatred they ended up fighting them.

Asia was not conquered by Rome. It was gifted by the childless (and insane) king Attalus III. The Romans, however treated the population as if they had been conquered and when Aristonicus led a rebellion in the hinterlands of Pergamon, the Legions were too busy ripping the gold fittings from the Attalid palace to act.

Manius Aquilius was not the governer of Asia. The Senate sacked Rufinus, the actual governor of Asia, as he complained that Roman slavers, money lenders and Tax farmers were bleeding the province of both people and money. He stated that it was not how Romans should treat their friends who came under the Republic peacefully. He was the only Roman the Asiatic Greeks spared during the Vespers.
If you have not heard of how the Romans got their taxes I suggest you read about Tax Farming. It was horrific.

Blossius was also a good friend and advisor to Gaius Gracchus. He fled after Gaius' murder and established the Heliopolitae to resist against some of the worst of Romes actions during its most ruthless period of history.

>>53981209
destroyed

its so nice when u disagree a lot with a poster but u ccant b arsed to post but someone does it 4 u and its even better than i couldve written

>>53980398
Looks rather comfy for 3rd century BC or so.

>>53983357
>at their height
implies a length of time, not a single day