Top ten Roman Atrocities?

[Marcellus Mastrannus]

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

 

Hmmmm I see your point about their good things and so forth and I agree. The reason I am a Romanophile is because believe or not our modern society would not exist in its present form if they had not of existed.

[Legate]

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.

 

Maybe if you were in Caesar's shoes you'd think differently. War has no sympathy or compassion my friend.

[Emperor Goblinus]

Even though it was over the course of nearly two centuries, I would say that the Romans' treatment of the Celtiberians was atrocious. Even though they were always brutal in war, the Romans ripped, extorted, and taxed the hell out of these people, completely demolishing their culture in a way that not even the Jews had to suffer. Yes, there were repeated revolts, but they were largely in response to the cruel treatment that the local commanders and governors heaped on them.

[Ursus]

I completely agree with you on a rational level.

 

However, when it comes to defenseless animals, I have a sympathy that perhaps extends beyond a rational look. Which is to say I find slaughter of animals for entertainment utterly needless on an emotional level by any standards of any era (hunting for sport, where the animal has a chance, is different)

 

I think bullfighting is rather stupid, as well.

 

 

 

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

[Ursus]

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

 

 

I agree it is hard to justify the destruction of a beaten, cowed enemy.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Not only was Carthage beaten and cowed, it remained a strategically important site for maritime trade. I don't see any reason Carthage couldn't have been given the same treatment as the Greek cities.

[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.

 

Maybe if you were in Caesar's shoes you'd think differently. War has no sympathy or compassion my friend.

Pompey was in Caesar's shoes more than once. This is one level he never descended to, quite uniquely among his compatriots I might add. The war fought in the North African desert in WW2 between the Allies and the Axis is witness that in war there is room for sympathy, compassion and chivalry - Krieg ohne hass. Otherwise this whole thread would be pointless.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

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

 

 

I agree it is hard to justify the destruction of a beaten, cowed enemy.

 

What was Cato's beef with Carthage anyway? That's one thing I never understood. Was it paranoia as in paranoia of a post-war unified Germany I wonder.

[M. Porcius Cato]

What was Cato's beef with Carthage anyway? That's one thing I never understood. Was it paranoia as in paranoia of a post-war unified Germany I wonder.

 

Best I can tell from Plutarch, Cato the Elder was concerned that the geographic position of Carthage gave it an enduring competitive advantage in maritime trade and made it a permanent military threat to Sicily and the western Mediterranean. Moreover, Carthage was in constant conflict with Numidia, a good Roman ally. I don't think either of these factors required razing the city (nor did most Roman senators either), but it does explain Cato the Elder's beef with Carthage, against whom he had personally fought.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

What was Cato's beef with Carthage anyway? That's one thing I never understood. Was it paranoia as in paranoia of a post-war unified Germany I wonder.

 

Best I can tell from Plutarch, Cato the Elder was concerned that the geographic position of Carthage gave it an enduring competitive advantage in maritime trade and made it a permanent military threat to Sicily and the western Mediterranean. Moreover, Carthage was in constant conflict with Numidia, a good Roman ally. I don't think either of these factors required razing the city (nor did most Roman senators either), but it does explain Cato the Elder's beef with Carthage, against whom he had personally fought.

Thanks for the info. Any details on Cato's military career against the Carthaginians? What battles etc?

[caesar novus]

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.

A recent rerun of Military History channel documentary had a Canadian war collage prof saying there wasn't evidence for that fate, and V. was probably quietly killed (in lieu his army and people, which Caesar had more typically killed afterward in Gaul). Reason was that a captured V. was like Napoleon in Elba (with millions more to kill) - the one person who had proven to be able to unite unmanageable guerilla subgroups in Gaul and guarantee more uprisings. That may have been why Caesar did so many massacres beforehand - only way to send a message to all Gauls before they had a focal point like V.

 

I think even in WW2, there was a similar problem. On paper France had the technology and troops to stop a Nazi invasion. Have you seen a German tank of this early era - they almost look like you could break off their skinny little barrel with your hand (unlike French tanks). Even the French president gave the right orders beforehand to prevent losing battles. But uncooperative factions and lack of a charismatic leader just let these advantages lay dormant.

Edited May 31, 2010 by caesar novus

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

A recent rerun of Military History channel documentary had a Canadian war collage prof saying there wasn't evidence for that fate, and V. was probably quietly killed (in lieu his army and people, which Caesar had more typically killed afterward in Gaul)

 

Wow, I'll take that with a dose of sodium chloride but I'll still look into it with an open mind.

[caesar novus]

A recent rerun of Military History channel documentary had a Canadian war collage prof saying there wasn't evidence for that fate, and V. was probably quietly killed (in lieu his army and people, which Caesar had more typically killed afterward in Gaul)

 

Wow, I'll take that with a dose of sodium chloride but I'll still look into it with an open mind.

Well, if you find a citation you could correct http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alesia#Aftermath which agrees with the no-strangulation theory. Actually the professor said there was LITTLE evidence (not none) for a ritual choking and Wiki suggests there was only gossip about it. He did take a ride in the triumph cage, but then went to prison with no further word on his fate, they say.

Edited June 4, 2010 by caesar novus

[The Roadie]

1) ?

2) Claudius Naumachia where 19,000 POWs fight and die. http://www.the-colosseum.net/games/navmachiae.htm

3) ?

4) ?

5) ?

6) ?

7) ?

8) ?

9) Commodus slaying groups of cripples http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodus#Commodus_the_gladiator

10) ?

 

Your version? I started by focusing on over the top, gratuitious depravity even by primitive day standards. Just put yourself in the victims place, when they are about to make a show of pouring liquid lead down your throat or something you could never have dreamed of in your experience. It seems a bit less bad to be torched as a Christian if they had already given you a chance to simply show respect for pagan totems (not even to believe in them or disbelieve in your god; just don't jinx the community good luck totem). Or massacre of a city for not surrendering... very bad, but they did have a chance to save themselves and save the Roman legion from risking their lives.

 

 

 

Hey CN. Do you mind if I pinch your idea (and some of the replies) and use it as a basis for a lecture for the local History Group?

 

"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. I could play with the number of attrocities based on time available, 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.

 

Is that OK?

 

My top three would be:

 

1. The destruction and utter annihilation of the Dacian people, which Trajan also celebrated.

 

2. The Third Carthaginian War.

 

3. The destruction of Jerusalem and first Roman-Jewish War.

 

In all these conflicts, probably more than a million people perished in each one of them,

 

4. Caesar's Gallic campaign.

 

5. Claudius' campaign in Britannia.

 

6. The treatment of Goth refugees by emperor Valens, forcing them to sell their own children into sex slavery in return for food.

 

7. The murdering of the Foederati families by Honorius.

 

8. Theodosius slaying 10 000 unarmed spectators in an arena just because a mob had killed a local governor.

 

9. Sulla's proscriptions.

 

10. The proscriptions of the second triumvirate.

 

Note that the campaigns I listed only are campaigns where excessive force was used, killing millions of civilians.

[DecimusCaesar]

Although he is seen as one of the Five Good Emperor', Hadrian's campaign against the Jews was rather brutal and vindictive - although it was an attempt to bring down a rebelling province. He had Jerusalem plundered and burnt (while also renaming it Aelia Capitolina), while almost a thousand villages cross Judea were burnt to the ground. The Talmud mentions millions of Jews being killed, while the Romans put a more conservative estimate of about 500,000. The Romans also pursued a scorched earth policy that must have killed many more. Sacred scrolls were burnt, rabbis were executed and the Torah was banned - all under Hadrian's attempts to stamp out Jewish practices. He also ordered thousands of Jews to be flogged, tortured and then crucified throught Judea. Thousands of others were enslaved. It was these events that some historians argue led to the Jewish disapora into Europe.