Guest spartacus Posted March 4, 2005 Report Share Posted March 4, 2005 To answer P.Clodius statement that I am anti-caesarian I suppose I would have been a rebel, hence my choice of user name! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pompeius magnus Posted March 4, 2005 Report Share Posted March 4, 2005 I hardly doubt you can blame Caesar for being an ethnic cleanser. What Caesar did was accepted at the time as being acceptable and necessary. He did not want to leave a chance for dissention so this was an example to anyone who might think about rebelling. Crassus did the same thing with the remaining gladiator army of Spartacus, crusified them on intervals along main road going into Roma. Ethnic cleansing back in the ancient times would have been more along the lines of what the Assyrians did to the Jews when they took Jerusalem, and the Babylonians, and pretty much any polythesistic peoples who conquered the Judea. Now Roman persecution of Christians and Jews is a different story as it was focusing on eliminating a minority religion, which is a little different from ethnic cleansing but still close. This is coming from a definate supporter of Caesar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted March 4, 2005 Report Share Posted March 4, 2005 I agree with the primuspilus. The murder and enslavement committed by the Romans did not have a specifically ethnic focus, it was merely the usual operations of war and empire. We can't apply modern European obsessions with ethnic differences to Ancient Romans, who didn't seem to think in such terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlapse Posted March 4, 2005 Report Share Posted March 4, 2005 'Ethnic cleasing' for those who resisted. Its a very simple, conditional concept and has come into play in every human conflict. You fight back, we kill you. Â Theres a difference when a group is irrationally singled out and annihilated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spartacus Posted March 4, 2005 Report Share Posted March 4, 2005 I think my initial point has been missed a little, for whatever reason a race or tribe of people is totally erased then no matter which way you look at it, ancient or modern it is STILL ethnic cleansing! For example, Caeser wiped out entire Belgic and Gallic tribes, he felt justified as to him they posed a threat, thats his reasoning, but whatever excuse is put forward it is again - ethnic cleansing! Â Whilst I always appreciate individual points of view and enjoy reading other sides of the argument, the outcome, to me will always be the same, but please keep your thoughts coming in, I may not agree but I will always take on board your views Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted March 4, 2005 Report Share Posted March 4, 2005 Ethnic cleansing is the deliberate elimination of an ethnic group of people. The Romans never did that. Period. You can twist history to fit the modern interpretation and/or your own moral codes, but its quite simply wrong. Caesar may have razed some towns and villages and even killed people by the millions. However, he did not wipe out the Celtic people, nor did he ever intend to. He killed until they were subdued, and thats all. Â In the modern world, ethnic cleansing is not about subjugation, it is about the elimination of an ethnicity. Even if the victimized group 'surrenders' to their oppressor, the cleansing would continue because the goal is not supreme authority. The goal is the death of a lesser race. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spartacus Posted March 4, 2005 Report Share Posted March 4, 2005 PP, you have just shot yourself in the foot!  Quote: The goal is the death of a lsser race - your words!  Was that not the aim of the Serbs in Bosnia, to rid themselves of a lesser race, and the entire world saw it as ethnic cleansing!  Was that not the aim of the Third Reich to rid themselves of a lesser race, and the entire world saw it as ethnic cleansing!  The answer you are looking for is NO - I do not twist history, I state facts, which you are oblivious to, it is cold, calculated determination to extinguish a group, usually due to intense hatred  I appreciate your views but in this case, no matter your interpretation, I still believe it was ethnic cleansing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted March 4, 2005 Report Share Posted March 4, 2005 PP, you have just shot yourself in the foot! Quote: The goal is the death of a lsser race - your words! hatred  Tell me how I have shot myself in the foot. The goal of the those who commit ethnic cleansing is the elimination of those they think are inferior. Caesar may have saw them as inferior, but that was not the motivation for war.  As I've said countless times. Caesar's goal was never the elimination of the Celtic people, nor did he conquer them out of any sort of hatred. In fact many Celts were Caesars allies and remained so after the final surrender of Gallic resistence. By definition, their conquest was not ethnic cleansing. Caesar's goal was the increase of his own glory, dignity, wealth and politcal power. He didn't care who he conquered, as long as there was someone to conquer. Once the war had ended, the Celtic people became important and contributing members of Roman society in western Europe.  I will no longer reply to this thread, as it is obviously becoming pointless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlapse Posted March 4, 2005 Report Share Posted March 4, 2005 I think a big difference is how modern world wide media affects popular opinion. Terms like ethnic cleansing are coined in certain situations that are racially or religiously oriented. While some of this definitely came into play during Roman conquests, my personal feeling is that most Roman conflicts don't exactly fit the criteria of the modern ones mentioned. That's just me though and I'm a biased SOB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spartacus Posted March 4, 2005 Report Share Posted March 4, 2005 ok PP, it has come to a conclusion! Â thanks for your participation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted March 4, 2005 Report Share Posted March 4, 2005 Nice flame bait. I am replying because I am forced to. Debate is encouraged as that is the idea of this forum. Those sort of comments are not. Â That's all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spartacus Posted March 4, 2005 Report Share Posted March 4, 2005 No offence intended PP, honest! Â Maybe the debate got a bit lively, I was on my own you know, against numerous intellects so it was getting one-sided! Â no hard feelings pal! Â Â Spartacus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 NP... What I should've said was, we should agree to disagree. Either way, now I'm done, and I leave this thread to others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spartacus Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 Fair comment! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pompeius magnus Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 I have to go with PP here. Ethnic Cleansing is the intentional cleansing of an ethnic group, such as the Armernians by the Turks. Caesar and many other generals throughout history used the tactic of scaring rebelllious groups into submission to prevent them from stirring a rebellion. Casting a black shadow on Caesar is not fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.