U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-18-2019, 10:59 AM
 
Location: Glasgow Scotland
15,254 posts, read 12,499,091 times
Reputation: 22080

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307 View Post
A lot of Roman soldiers weren't Roman. They belonged to tribes and people picked up along the way. I know they weren't always trusted as much as the other soldiers, but they were part of the Roman Army.
thanks Im just having a read about conscripts and volunteers...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxilia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-18-2019, 11:10 AM
 
Location: MN
148 posts, read 274,200 times
Reputation: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldjensens View Post
Do you think Adolf Hitler was a bad person?

They had similar beliefs and practices.

Julius Cesar tried to eradicate the Celts, apparently slaughtering them by the hundreds of thousands. he so so because it would make him popular. Celts invaded Rome about 100 years earlier, so he set out to completely extinguish every man woman and child and pretty well succeeded. He did not get to Northern England, so they survived there.
I find little similarity in Caesar & Hitler.



Julius Caesar was of an aristocratic background. His whole programme existed to pacify the Roman urban masses (or mobs if you prefer), using himself as a military intermediary between the urban plebs & aristocrats. Yes, he plundered and sacked Gaul; but he did so more as an adventuring opportunist. Julius was born into a family which was of a "faction," which opposed outright aristocratic rule (through the Senate) as that might bring the whole Roman state to an end, so the so-called "Populares" tried to balance the Senate with the Popular Assemblies to try to mediate each other so Rome (and therefore themselves) would not be ruined. Julius was in his adolescence during Sulla's dictatorship, he was dispossessed of his family inheritance and narrowly escaped with his life, I believe Sulla remarked that he "saw many Mariuses in the boy." Caesar had to contract debts to run for offices, and needed to repay them and guarantee himself to be immune to any further proscription. Also the Gauls were massing again seemingly for another invasion (the Romans some 50 years before barely defended themselves against such an invasion). So Gaul would be a perfect opportunity for him. It would allow him to repay debts, become so popular as to be de facto immune to proscription, and remove an Roman threat.



Hitler never sought to pacify the German masses, he sought to energize them (hence also the hatred between the Nazis and the German aristocrats). He seemed to fully believe that "Judeo-Bolshevism" was some existential threat to the German people, which was an internal threat. Also, Hitler never seems to have cared about mercy. Whereas Caesar always seemed to try to associate himself with mercy and "clemency," probably to try do disassociate himself from Marius and Sulla.


The modern equivalent of Caesar is much more Napoleon Bonaparte than Hitler. Caesar was an opportunist and never seemed to look beyond his career and through it quelling the strife of the Roman Republic, as Bonaparte was to France. Hitler was never much of an opportunist, he was rather principled; had higher ambitions, if rather decrepit.


Quote:
With the numbers of Roman soldiers and legions I wondered if there were any men left at home.
Hence the Marian reforms. The earlier armies of the Republic were fine for its early state. They are rather cheap and do fine when defending the small home territory. When the Roman armies started invading distant lands is when they sank. With the armies far off, a lot of the farms decayed and coupled with cheap slavery the latifundia grew, but this dispossessed the peasantry and thus no longer eligible for military duty, also city-life makes for worse military conscripts than rural peasants. Around 100 B.C. Rome was not actually faring to well militarily. So the property requirements were relaxed, and armies were being raised from the propertyless, with the general supplying the arms; to make effective soldiers out of the urban-dwellers, the armies were no longer so temporary militias but professional soldiers (I believe the standard enlistment period was 20 yrs.). This gave Rome strong enough armies again, but now the armies were not peasant militias but standing armies supplied by generals. This saved and killed the republic, it could now defend itself again from external threats, but made it more susceptible to internal ones and was a very expensive system.
Quote:

A lot of Roman soldiers weren't Roman.
I believe this tended to be the later de-populated Empire, when the armies were more and more mercenaries and allies rather than from the citizenry proper.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2019, 03:16 PM
 
Location: Saint Paul
889 posts, read 389,126 times
Reputation: 1080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307 View Post
A lot of Roman soldiers weren't Roman. They belonged to tribes and people picked up along the way. I know they weren't always trusted as much as the other soldiers, but they were part of the Roman Army.
Arminius was the leader of the Germanic tribes that defeated the legions at the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest. He was from the Cherusci tribe and was sent as a hostage to Rome when he was a child. He received military training and was a trusted senior military advisor to Publius Quinctilius Varus, commander of the three legions. He led Varus to believe the German tribes were planning an uprising and where they could be met and defeated. Then Arminius went off to reconnoiter the area, but in fact to take charge of the Germanic forces and lead them to attack at the exact point where the Romans would be most vulnerable.

Also, some of the Romans had deserted and joined the other side. Probably they originally came from those tribes.

So, at least in that case, it wasn't a good idea to trust the barbarians, even when they seemed to be peaceable and even loyal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2019, 07:06 AM
 
Location: Grosse Ile Michigan
26,429 posts, read 62,665,397 times
Reputation: 30226
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcgr View Post
I find little similarity in Caesar & Hitler.


You mean aside from the whole genocidal maniac thing?

That may be true. I was really just referring to the fact they were both genocidal maniacs that slaughtered hundreds of thousands (or millions) of non-combatants (including children)trying to completely wipe out a culture.

It may be they have little else in common, but that is a pretty big one. It is the primary thing Hitler is known for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2019, 11:14 AM
 
Location: MN
148 posts, read 274,200 times
Reputation: 125
Quote:
It is the primary thing Hitler is known for.
Hitler is remembered for it because he did in the 20th century, in continental Europe, and lost his war badly. Putting whole cities and tribes to the sword and splitting the loot was somewhat standard fare in the ancient world, if not that then enslaving the women and children and massacring everyone else who could be a potential threat or had zero value. Did not the god of Israel genocide the whole world with his flood and only saved one family? Did he not help the Israelites genocide the Canaanites so the Israelites could live on their land?



Caesar is primarily remembered for conquering Rome and de facto disposing of the Republican institutions which no longer served anyone but the some small amount of aristocrats. His mistake he is remembered for is not dressing himself as "restoring the republic" as Augustus keenly did. His conquest of Gaul was viewed well by most Romans, except some aristocrats who feared his growing power and rivalship and that he may interfere with their "liberty."



Quote:
I was really just referring to the fact they were both genocidal maniacs that slaughtered hundreds of thousands (or millions) of non-combatants (including children)trying to completely wipe out a culture
Caesar to me does not seem like some maniac, his conquest of Gaul was quite a rational thing to do for his position, after all, he eventually went to conquer Rome itself as a savior. The plunder, killings, and enslavement was just the standard practice at the time (what else was he supposed to do with the Gauls?), he just happened to conquer one of the largest pieces of land occupied by some (rather expansionist) Gallic tribes.



Where do think Rome got its slaves and land? They didn't acquire them by being hippie pacifists through peaceable trade. Likewise, any successful state of the ancient world was somewhat genocidal, putting neighbors to the torch. Almost every tribe or city-state of the time was interested in someday wiping out, enslaving, or plundering their neighbors, the Romans (including Caesar) happened to be the most successful, and often were not even the most "genocidal" of the lot.

Last edited by bcgr; 03-19-2019 at 11:58 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2019, 11:03 AM
 
Location: MN
148 posts, read 274,200 times
Reputation: 125
Addendum:
The Holocaust itself was rather gratuitous, and seems mainly be an extension of the Nazis total war against the Soviet Union, the heartland of "Judeo-Bolshevism." They had from this time a policy of complete extermination, rather than expulsion or containment, applied to the Jews/others. The fact that the leadership tried to keep it secret meant that they knew it was a criminal act or would be viewed so.


When the Gallic tribes were subjugated, the Romans stopped massacring them and absorbed Gaul. And didn't bother them too much except with taxes and occasional expeditions to deal with rebellions. Caesar was no ancient Hitler; he was applying ancient warfare to the Gauls. That warfare may seem barbaric today, which the Holocaust was, but it was not especially barbaric back then. I think modern warfare is in some cases even more barbaric than in ancient times.

Last edited by bcgr; 03-20-2019 at 11:30 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2019, 08:15 AM
 
Location: Grosse Ile Michigan
26,429 posts, read 62,665,397 times
Reputation: 30226
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcgr View Post




Caesar to me does not seem like some maniac, his conquest of Gaul was quite a rational thing to do for his position, after all, he eventually went to conquer Rome itself as a savior. The plunder, killings, and enslavement was just the standard practice at the time (what else was he supposed to do with the Gauls?), he just happened to conquer one of the largest pieces of land occupied by some (rather expansionist) Gallic tribes.


Slaughtering an entire people was pretty unique even for then. Rome typically conquered a people and then made them part of Rome. Caesar slaughtered the Celts wholesale. Rome wanted a scapegoat for problems and the Celts had invaded Rome 80 or 100 years earlier, so why not try to kill every last one of them? it certainly made him popular.

I am not aware of Rome doing that to any other culture. In fact, I cannot think of any examples of ancient times where someone killed so many and then bragged about it, or tried to destroy an entire people (not just a specific nation or city but every single person of a specific culture). I am sure it happened someplace, but conquering an entire people just so you can slaughter them all is somewhat unique. It is somewhat more common in recent times. Arguably the Europeans tried to do that with the native Americans, Hitler with the Jews, Croats and slavs took turns truing to wipe each other out. Various Muslim sects (Kurds etc). Often though thee goal is to conquer and oppress or enslave, not to completely wipe every one of them out. that takes a pretty special sociopath.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2019, 07:04 AM
 
Location: MN
148 posts, read 274,200 times
Reputation: 125
Quote:
Rome typically conquered a people and then made them part of Rome.
Yes and no; subject to Rome yes, but not on an equal status. Conquered people were subject to Roman law, but under different classes of law. It wasn't even until the 1st century BC that most Italians were legally Roman citizens. E.g. Jesus lived under the Roman Empire, but one would not consider him a "Roman."
Quote:
so why not try to kill every last one of them?
Evidence? Where is his system of extermination? Why did he let so many Gauls live?

Quote:
I am not aware of Rome doing that to any other culture.
Carthage.
Quote:
In fact, I cannot think of any examples of ancient times where someone killed so many and then bragged about it
Which I think is a crucial difference between Caesar and Hitler. Hitler & the Nazis never bragged about the Holocaust, they tried to keep it a secret. They knew it was criminal. Even modern Nazis try to deny the Holocaust, not boast about it. Caesar's war against the Gauls was to help secure him political power & legal immunity. After his war he was Rome's greatest conqueror, and hence when the Senate tried to disarm and recall him the Roman people were outraged and he had a devoted army. After the Gallic wars were over Caesar seemed to pay Gaul no special attention.
Quote:
Often though thee goal is to conquer and oppress or enslave, not to completely wipe every one of them out.
Caesar did the first two, not the last one.

Last edited by bcgr; 03-29-2019 at 07:14 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2019, 07:28 AM
 
Location: Grosse Ile Michigan
26,429 posts, read 62,665,397 times
Reputation: 30226
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcgr View Post
Evidence? Where is his system of extermination? Why did he let so many Gauls live?

.
Evidence is his wonw writings and some records of others.

He let Gauls live if they weren't Celts. Why did he not kill all of htem? Becuase he could nto get to them and wanted to return to Rome. He killed enough to allow him to claim he had wiped out the entire people. he wiped out enough of them they were no longet the dominent culture inthe area, they were basically gone. Besides, no one was going to go to the British islands or the few pockets he did not get to and call him out as a liar, especially after he grew in power.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2019, 02:11 PM
 
Location: MN
148 posts, read 274,200 times
Reputation: 125
Quote:
Evidence is his wonw writings and some records of others.
I.e. you don't have any to show. Where is the evidence? Show me where he wants to "kill every last one of them."
Quote:
He let Gauls live if they weren't Celts.
The Gauls were Celts.
Quote:
claim he had wiped out the entire people.
Where is this claim?
Quote:
he wiped out enough of them they were no longet the dominent culture inthe area, they were basically gone.
Many Gauls died, yes. Many were enslaved, yes. But there were also many remaining, which were now governed by the Roman state, and were "Romanized." Melded with Roman culture, which I believe was called "Gallo-Roman."
Quote:
no one was going to go to the British islands or the few pockets he did not get to and call him out as a liar,
Why not? His growing power was a threat to the Senate, most other aristocrats detested Caesar, hence he is usually depicted negatively. They were constantly naming him a liar.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top