Brutality Of The Roman Army

[Emperor Goblinus]

As we all know, the Roman army was merciless in punishing its foes and subduing uprisings, looting and burning cities to the ground, raping the women and carrying everybody that they didn't kill off into slavery. Then again, this was a common practice in the ancient world. Of course, just because something is a common practice doesn't mean that it's right. But how brutal were the Romans towards their enemies compared with other powers of the ancient world?

[Primus Pilus]

Without citing any evidence at all, I would suggest that all ancient cultures were capable of extreme brutality or 'merciless' behavior. However, since its Rome who conquered the western world, and (very important distinction) left written and visual evidence to the world, its easy to see the 'brutality'. As they also received the brunt of the propoganda associated with the religious upheaval in the later empire and the middle ages, they are often portrayed and viewed as being the 'leaders of brutality'. Surely, by virtue of their dominance of so many people and so much territory they were more likely to show this behavior, and perhaps such dominance provides evidence of their extreme nature in comparison to other cultures. In light of that an argument could be made... for what other culture could've dominated except the most brutal? However, such a notion is leaving out far too much other reasoning and simply implies that because the Roman were brutal, they dominated the west.

 

[Edited for grammar, ouch, PP ]

[Jimbow]

Proportionally, in terms of population count, I would endeavour to say the 20thC has seen far more brutality than Rome in any 100 year period. I'll refer to this thread from last January:

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1120&hl=hitler

 

I personally think it's quite likely that the phrase 'Pax Romana' is quite a valid one.

 

Cheers,

Jim.

Edited November 28, 2005 by Jimbow

[Favonius Cornelius]

I have found a lot of anti-Roman sentiment on the web in various places, and most of the time it is from hardcore Christians. All one has to do is mention peoples like the Huns to see really how civilized the Romans generally were.

[Pertinax]

Rome is the Light

[LEG X EQ]

All tribes were brutal, and that depended on their religion, some tribes still sacrificed humans (carthage), making those tribes accustomed to brutality from birth, and it also depended on the cause of the battles. But yes, the Romans were very brutal and ruthless. The romans considered themselves supirior to all. Thats due to their history, when rome was still very young and not even close to be an empire, they went to war against Carthage a well established Empire, with a massive navy. The Romans crushed and erased the carthage nation. What Hitler tried to do with the jews of europe, the Romans did to the carthagians. With that in every Roman mind, that they are capable of erasing an empire, they fought against the rest. The Celts were propably hit the worst, alone in the battles of Alesia, over 200000 celts were massacred(although the Romans were in the minority), The vilages of the celts were mostly made of wood and were easy to burn down, the Celtic women were left defensless against Roman Soldiers who just killed their men on the battlefield (and who propably had a huge appetite of Lust).

[LEG X EQ]

As for the Hardcore Christians, well, if its true what you say, than they arent really informed, the christians who got persecuted in Rome were Romans themselves, Rome was one of the first christian cities in europe, the reason why Modern Rome doesnt have a real Metro system is because the Roman Christians had build catcombs (undergriund tunnels), to worship their new religion. The earliest martyrs were also romans, and in the last centuaries of the empire the Romans fought with a cross on their shields, and the era of the Roman saints came about(saint martin, saint george, saint ambrose etc etc.). So i dont quite understand their logic.

[Favonius Cornelius]

All tribes were brutal, and that depended on their religion, some tribes still sacrificed humans (carthage), making those tribes accustomed to brutality from birth, and it also depended on the cause of the battles. But yes, the Romans were very brutal and ruthless. The romans considered themselves supirior to all. Thats due to their history, when rome was still very young and not even close to be an empire, they went to war against Carthage a well established Empire, with a massive navy. The Romans crushed and erased the carthage nation. What Hitler tried to do with the jews of europe, the Romans did to the carthagians. With that in every Roman mind, that they are capable of erasing an empire, they fought against the rest. The Celts were propably hit the worst, alone in the battles of Alesia, over 200000 celts were massacred(although the Romans were in the minority), The vilages of the celts were mostly made of wood and were easy to burn down, the Celtic women were left defensless against Roman Soldiers who just killed their men on the battlefield (and who propably had a huge appetite of Lust).

 

Really this thread belongs more in the morality forum, but anyway we have had a long running thread on this topic there (you can find it under 'roman genocide.') Anyway I agree with PimusPilus' point that the Romans and the Nazis are in fact not the same. If the Romans were the same then they would not have stopped with Carthrage, but would have killed every last person of Semitic ethnicity along the African coast, in Hispania, and the islands. This of course did not happen. What the Romans a guilty of really is opportunism, greed and a touch in cowardice in destroying Carthrage. Done out of petty revenge rather than a desire to exterminate a race. Destruction of a powerful city than a people.

 

As far as the Gauls are concerned, Caesar himself is guilty of the same issues of morality, yet no different than any other people of the times. The Romans could not have been interested in genocide of the Gauls by giving them seats in the senate and making friends and allies out of the ones who were willing.

Edited November 28, 2005 by Favonius Cornelius

[LEG X EQ]

I think you misunderstood me, my point was not about genocide, but about the Roman Pride and Ignorence towards other tribes.

we all know phrases like:

"I am a Roman, and you are just a king"

or JFKs famous speech in Berlin:

 

[Vespasion]

As to refer to the hardcore christians, if they beleived the Romans were brutal they should research their history.

 

The christians were one of the most brutal religous sects; anyone who proved any religous beliefs wrong were murdered in secret. Christianity cann't claim to be a peaceful religion when their history has been filled with violence.

 

The Crusades for example; christianity encouraged knights to go off and kill.

 

Thanks

[Primus Pilus]

Before this goes too far off on a religious tangent, allow me to interject that while Christian history is often under attack on this forum, religion has long been and still is an excuse for war, and is/was not the exclusive domain of Christianity.

[Favonius Cornelius]

As to refer to the hardcore christians, if they beleived the Romans were brutal they should research their history.

 

The christians were one of the most brutal religous sects; anyone who proved any religous beliefs wrong were murdered in secret. Christianity cann't claim to be a peaceful religion when their history has been filled with violence.

 

The Crusades for example; christianity encouraged knights to go off and kill.

 

Thanks

 

If you compare polytheism and monotheism, clearly monotheism has all the blood on its hands. I can't even think of a single instance of polytheistic religious warfare, and on the contrary it is well known for its acceptance of other beliefs.

[Felix Marcellus]

I got lost when we started talking about brutality was common in the ancient world. I want to know at what point it became uncommon? Tsutsis and Hutus ring a bell with anybody? Not ancient. The Balkans, Sudan, Iraq. Ask a Uighur if the Chinese government is brutal? Ask a convicted thief in Saudi Arabia if his punishment was brutal? Make him explain it to you in sign language.

 

Brutality is not constrained nor is the brutality market cornered by a given nation. Humans are brutal. The Romans just happened to be winning. Look at the US today. I've heard two things on the news about the way prisoners in Turkish prisons are treated.... Jack and Sh....... Who is the world now giving its undivided attention to in the realm of human rights violations right now? The United States of America. Because we are winning. We are the winners. The Haves and the have nots can't stand it. So things like GITMO and Abu Ghurayb get blown way out of proportion.

 

I'm sure Roman atrocities or perceived atrocities were inflated by Rome's enemies and later Historians simply because it's a la mode to take cheap shots at the world power. To me it just indicates a lack of capability to seriously challenge said world power.

[Primus Pilus]

If you compare polytheism and monotheism, clearly monotheism has all the blood on its hands. I can't even think of a single instance of polytheistic religious warfare, and on the contrary it is well known for its acceptance of other beliefs.

 

one example: the Roman Imperial Cult and the Jews. Yes, it was political, cultural and religious, but there was still proverbial blood on the hand for what essentially boiled down to a religious dispute.

 

Again, lets refocus this back on the military discussion that was intended.

[Hamilcar Barca]

A civilisation devoid of brutality would be incapable of conquering the known western world. The Romans used brutality to enforce their authority upon those who resisted but those who submitted peacefully were usually treated with respect and were often honoured or rewarded. Of course their were exceptions such as the Thir Punic War, but the brutality displayed here was based on fear and historical grievances opposed to reckless violence. Of course there were a few rogue provincial rulers who were notorious for cruelty such as Verres, the Sicilian governor who later came under attack from Cicero as well as many of the Spanish governors in the mid 2nd Century BC, whose extreme cruelty and treachary was the very cause of many rebellions. However, such individuals were a minority and in most cases were severly punnished for their brutality.