You must log in or register to comment.
Interestingly, when I was doing some research on the European cultural shift from Humanism to the Enlightenment, I recall some sources (forgive me, at work and not able to refer to them) suggesting that living in and around Roman ruins greatly lent itself to the Christian narrative that the people were living in a “last age of decay” just prior to the apocalypse. So technically pre-apocalypse, but more or less on the nose
Explanation: While the difference is sometimes exaggerated out of nostalgia for a time never lived in, it is certainly true that the decline and fall of the Roman Empire had disastrous effects on the lives of the formerly prosperous provinces which comprised it. Trade routes which were once safe from the Atlantic to the eastern Mediterranean were now treacherous, centralized authorities which punished banditry were weakened, wealthy benefactors and government officials seeking glory through the construction of infrastructure were impoverished. Life, even for the common people, became harder, and relicts of the past towered above the ramshackle buildings of the post-Roman polities. A true apocalypse!
I would just say people needed a little excitement, and they finally got it.
What have the Romans ever done for us?
The aqueduct
And the roads!
Brittain before Roman rule was probably even happier. But i guess when you’re the conquering army you get to decide what is and isnt “civilized”
What have the Romans ever done for us??
You know, besides the aqueducts, the roads, baths, public sanitation, law and order…
You… You responded to the wrong comment my guy
Edit: No actually I’ll take this one. Do you seriously think romans invented roads and aquaducts? They didn’t. Or are suggesting Romans were some kind of benevolent force bestowing these technologies for free? Because that wasn’t the case either.
Or are suggesting Romans were some kind of benevolent force bestowing these technologies for free?
Ah, almost 2000 years later and we’re still having the same arguments.
Rabbi Yehuda opened and said: How pleasant are the actions of this nation, the Romans, as they established marketplaces, established bridges, and established bathhouses. Rabbi Yosei was silent. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai responded and said: Everything that they established, they established only for their own purposes. They established marketplaces, to place prostitutes in them; bathhouses, to pamper themselves; and bridges, to collect taxes from all who pass over them.
“The Roman government did things which benefitted the public.”
“Yes, but they did them SELFISHLY, so it doesn’t count. Unlike the local rulers, who definitely would have done so selflessly.”
Raises interesting philosophical questions i guess. Is an action taken with the intention of exploitation that unintentionally ends up being beneficial ultimately a good action?
Is an action taken with the intention of exploitation that unintentionally ends up being beneficial ultimately a good action?
Good in what sense? ‘Good’ as in ‘virtuous’ would be debatable, but ‘good’ as in ‘a positive benefit’ is pretty inarguable, and furthermore disputing would suggest that very little has happened that is beneficial in human history outside of the individual level. Except, perhaps ironically, some of the most minor alleviations of suffering.
Roman rule (let’s not get into conquest for now) was ‘good’ insofar as it had serious, tangible, and accessible benefits to the vast majority of the population compared to what came before and after.
Or, in the words of the Emperor Tiberius, “A good shepherd shears his sheep; he does not slaughter them.”
Hmm, personally I dont think you can so casually brush off the conquest part. How many people would you accept being murdered, raped, and enlaved in order to justify this positive benifit? Is there a specific number? If the supposed benifit was greater, would you accept more people being killed? How big does a benefit to future generations need to be to justify killing and enslaving the current population?
Hmm, personally I dont think you can so casually brush off the conquest part.
It’s not ‘brushing off’, it’s a different question/discussion entirely.
How many people would you accept being murdered, raped, and enlaved in order to justify this positive benifit?
Would ‘equal or less than the amount caused by native warfare in the same period’ be an acceptable response?
The difference is local rulers did shit selfishly all the time, yet there weren’t aqueducts or marketplaces built. And to say shit like “oh they built bathhouses to pamper themselves” as if they couldn’t be used to pamper people other than Romans, or that they built bridges and asked people to pay for using them, as if they magically blocked off the “old way” of going across instead of making an incredibly convenient new bridge.
Conquest sucks, that’s obvious. But let’s not act as if their lives didn’t improve after the conquest.
Thats really easy to say in hindsight, in a world where almost all the sources are roman. But imagine you could go back in time, do you think your argument would be very compelling to people being subjected by romans?
Not to mention how doubtful it is that every single tribe and nation conquered by Rome somehow ended up bountiful and happy like some history enthusiasts would have you believe.
Theres also the question of whether these people could have made said advancements on their own, or through peaceful trade and exchange of ideas. Personally, i think they probably could have.
Thats really easy to say in hindsight, in a world where almost all the sources are roman. But imagine you could go back in time, do you think your argument would be very compelling to people being subjected by romans?
Very often these arguments were compelling. The Romans of the Imperial era rarely conquered enemies solely by force of arms, but by subversion of locals to join their cause.
Not to mention how doubtful it is that every single tribe and nation conquered by Rome somehow ended up bountiful and happy like some history enthusiasts would have you believe.
Some were pushed out or wiped out. But most were living more-or-less their former lives, but with the advantages that come with being connected to a massive and stable empire.
Theres also the question of whether these people could have made said advancements on their own, or through peaceful trade and exchange of ideas. Personally, i think they probably could have.
Curious, then, that not only did they not make such advancements, but many of said advancements would disappear for a full millennia after the fall of Rome before re-emerging in Europe.
The issue isn’t “Romans were smarter”, the issue is that Romans had a massive state apparatus capable of and interested in such improvements, and that doesn’t spring up overnight. Nor is it easily replaced or replicated.
This is going to go down a very interesting colonialism rabbit hole
Just to make sure: this was a movie reference to Life of Brian.
… Bro where were you yesterday?? Hahaha we’ve started a whole philosophy debate now uuuuuuughhhhh
Pre-Roman Britain was famed for its many aquaducts and quality roads
And we had a cracking sundial.
They were famed for their metalwork, poetry, art, and horsemanship. But i suppose if one’s metric for cultural worth is aqueducts per square kilometer then ya i guess they needed to be conquered.
Who needs clean water when you have poetry to make you feel good while dying of dysentery?
username checks out
One is more organized and efficient, the other is more edifying for the soul.
Rome and Sauron did nothing wrong.
I’ll fight you right now!
Vote Sauron 2028, 2032, 2036, and the all important 2040.
