Top ten Roman Atrocities?

[caesar novus]

Hey CN. Do you mind if I pinch your idea

No objection, but it would be nice to eventually see a summary here. I guess I had the order reversed from the usual convention, such as http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-worst-popes-in-history.php which builds up to the #1 worst at the end. Maybe "worst" is a good term to put in front of "Roman atrocities" as well, in case someone wonders if you are for or against.

Edited October 12, 2009 by caesar novus

[sylla]

"The Top Ten Roman Attrocities" is a title that would really pack 'em in (what does that tell you about human nature?) . . . . and bums on seats usually means new members.

Arguably, it tells us that by nature most humans prefer sensationalistic gossipy over regular historical narratives or boring studies, naturally including yours truly.

BTW, toptenz.net nicely illustrates such point.

"... and finish (or maybe start . . . no, finish) with The Rape of the Sabine Women. Sounds like an attrocity, but (arguably) wasn't. I could even tell it to make the Romans sound like the good guys! Let the audience go out on a feel-good story.

Arguably, you may have not met too many victims of sexual abuse yet.

 

... Maybe "worst" is a good term to put in front of "Roman atrocities" as well, in case someone wonders if you are for or against.

In all likelihood the title is currently explicit enough; if you are "for" any action, it's quite unlikely that you would call it an "atrocity" to begin with.

 

In any case, the complementary alternative title ("The Top Ten Best Roman Atrocities") sounds like kind of weird ...

Edited October 13, 2009 by sylla

[GhostOfClayton]

Arguably, you may have not met too many victims of sexual abuse yet.

 

Now, on UNRV, I always venture into this sort of territory with a certain trepidation. I know there are much better educated folk on here than myself. . . . but . . . I was always lead to believe that in the case of the rape of the Sabine women, no rape actually took place. Rape (I thought) was a mistranslation of 'Raptio', which actually meant 'abduction'. The idea from the Romans was to hold the Sabine women only long enough to persuade them that they would have a better life if they stayed, than if they returned to their Sabine menfolk, and many opted to stay.

 

On the subject on human nature, (without straying from The Rape of the Sabine Women too far), if I'm running in front of time on my Hadrian's Wall tours, I offer the clients a choice of lecture: 'Roman Tourist Tat' (which allows me to talk about the Rudge Cup, Amiens Skillet, Staffs Pan, etc.) or 'The Rape of the Sabine Women'. Every single group has asked for 'The Rape of the Sabine Women'.

 

By the way, "Top Ten Best v worst Roman Atrocities" . . . I need to ponder on that one!

Edited October 13, 2009 by GhostOfClayton

[GhostOfClayton]

No objection, but it would be nice to eventually see a summary here. I guess I had the order reversed from the usual convention, such as http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-worst-popes-in-history.php which builds up to the #1 worst at the end. Maybe "worst" is a good term to put in front of "Roman atrocities" as well, in case someone wonders if you are for or against.

 

Will do. . . thanks, CN.

[sylla]

The idea from the Romans was to hold the Sabine women only long enough to persuade them that they would have a better life if they stayed, than if they returned to their Sabine menfolk, and many opted to stay.

Amazing as it may seem, sexual abuse was definitively present.

In any version of this legend that I'm aware of, the women were abducted (kidnapped) by force (assault) for the explicit purpose of founding families, so sexual intercourse under coercion (rape) must be inferred ; as these were not isolated cases but the organized systematic coercion of a whole group, sexual slavery was also present; all the previous were continuous crimes across an undetermined period; multiple aggravating circumstances were likely present, depending for example on the specific techniques used by the Romans to "persuade" the women (torture might have been a consideration); and we have still to consider the virtually unavoidable presence of property damage, lesions and even homicide among the victims and their relatives & proxies.

 

All that said, I'm perfectly aware that in all likelihood this was just a legend; and as legend goes, not particularly gruesome, especially considering that good ol'king Romulus had recently committed fratricide.

Edited October 13, 2009 by sylla

[GhostOfClayton]

Amazing as it may seem, sexual abuse was definitively present.

In any version of this legend that I'm aware of, the women were abducted (kidnapped) by force (assault) for the explicit purpose of founding families, so sexual intercourse under coercion (rape) must be inferred ; as these were not isolated cases but the organized systematic coercion of a whole group, sexual slavery was also present; all the previous were continuous crimes across an undetermined period; multiple aggravating circumstances were likely present, depending for example on the specific techniques used by the Romans to "persuade" the women (torture might have been a consideration); and we have still to consider the virtually unavoidable presence of property damage, lesions and even homicide among the victims and their relatives & proxies.

 

All that said, I'm perfectly aware that in all likelihood this was just a legend; and as legend goes, not particularly gruesome, especially considering that good ol'king Romulus had recently committed fratricide.

 

Now, Sylla, I'm going to go out on a limb here. I tend to learn anything I know about Roman history from Wikipedia (so it must be right!?!), and I suspect you may have had a formal historical education, so I must tread carefully when engaging you in this discussion . . . but didn't Livy insist that no sexual assault took place?

[Kosmo]

It is obvious a case of kidnapping and rape and giving the scale (widespread or systematic) it would be considered today a war rape punished as a crime against humanity like in many decisions of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and possibly an element of genocide like in a 1998 decison of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, if applicable, the Rape of the Sabine Women would be a crime against humanity as art. 7 g "Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity" as "Enslavement" means the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in particular women and children and "Forced pregnancy" means the unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law.

It will qualified also to be a war crime under art. 8, so, sure, don't do this at home.

[GhostOfClayton]

Well, you guys have quite depressed me now. It made such a good story when Wikipedia told it . . . Keats and Aristotle were wrong, there's no truth in beauty after all. C'est la vie!

 

We'd better chalk that one up as an atrocity, then.

[Andreas]

The genocides inflicted upon the Gauls by Caesar and upon the Dacians by Trajan were both pretty bad and solely done on grounds of military adventureism and for stuffing the pockets of said commanders.

 

Most other peoples they conquered were spared for the most part except main centers of resistance but Gaul and Dacia were positively laid to waste by losing large parts of their populace to combat casualties, enslavement and famine.

[Emperor Goblinus]

I'm glad that someone mentioned Basil's blinding of the Bulgars; considering the size of the Bulgarian army, to order each one of them to be personally blinded strikes me as particularly sadistic.

 

Theodosius' massacre at Thessalonica was also pretty brutal and unjustified.

[P.Clodius]

Roman punishment methods, in particular the combo of scourging and crucifixion were pretty atrocious.

 

A particularly "lovely" example is the mass crucifixion of 6,600 slaves along the via Appia following the 3rd Servile War in 73-71 BC.

Crucification was not a roman invention, it appears to have arrived via the Carthaginians.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Personally, I'm pretty appalled by the whole Third Punic War. Carthage needn't have been destroyed.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Personally, I'm pretty appalled by the whole Third Punic War. Carthage needn't have been destroyed.

I completely agree.

Of all the Roman atrocities, the one that makes me particularly sick is the idea of leading a defeated king out in a triumph and then having him ritually strangled. A brave warrior like Vercingetorix deserved more chivalry.

[Marcellus Mastrannus]

To start with, I hope I am not resurrecting this topic from Elysium however I feel I should add a few words.

 

I am apologetic for saying this however I feel that this is exactly the sort of topic that gives the romans a bad press so to speak. I believe you are completely ignoring the context of the era, and, in my opinion, taking that unforgivable view of looking from the modern era back. It is extremely important in these issues to think from the perspective of a roman rather than a modern person. For example, the romans would have considered Commodus, Nero, Caligula etc atrocious people (see their sticky ends) however to them crucifying dogs is a tradition akin to bullfighting.

 

Regards

 

Marcellus

[caesar novus]

I feel that this is exactly the sort of topic that gives the romans a bad press so to speak. I believe you are completely ignoring the context of the era, and, in my opinion, taking that unforgivable view of looking from the modern era back. It is extremely important in these issues to think from the perspective of a roman rather than a modern person. For example, the romans would have considered Commodus, Nero, Caligula etc atrocious people (see their sticky ends) however to them crucifying dogs is a tradition akin to bullfighting.

I suspect most posters here agreed with your big picture perspective where Roman good side exceeds their bad. I urge you to post some top ten lists of their positive contributions, like technology, gov't or whatever. It somehow seems boring when I try even though I revere the Romans, and all I can come up with is something like the 5 worst Roman Arts: 1) 1st style painting 2) 2nd style painting 3) 3rd style painting 4) 4th style painting 5) their culinary arts. Well, maybe 3 best: 1) architecture 2) sculpture 3) mosaics

 

It's fun to contrast the eccentric failings of geniuses or genius cultures. The very thing that drives them to such heights sometimes accentuates their lows. For the Romans I still believe naumachia's were the height of depravity - an almost certain pointless mass death rather than the hit and miss of colloseum or battlefield hijinks. More recently, look at Tom Edison who invented electric lights etc. His pushing of impractical DC current distribution rather than AC led him to twisted demonstrations of electrocuting of an elephant and smaller animals with AC even though he was supposedly a great humanitarian man of science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Edison#War_of_currents

Edited March 12, 2010 by caesar novus