Roman Civil Wars

[Cassius Loginus]

I think it is shameful that Romans had to kill each other in civil wars. If Rome was spared from civil wars it would have been stronger to conquer more lands.

 

Please comment.

[Vibius Tiberius Costa]

I think it is shameful that Romans had to kill each other in civil wars. If Rome was spared from civil wars it would have been stronger to conquer more lands.

 

Please comment.

 

But without several civil wars Rome could have imploded on itself. Think without the civil war between Caesar and Pompey their would have been Emperors. Without that who knows what would have happened.

I will try and develop a few of these ideas another day.

 

vtc

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

I think it is shameful that Romans had to kill each other in civil wars. If Rome was spared from civil wars it would have been stronger to conquer more lands.

 

Please comment.

 

Sometimes a Civil War is required in order for a nation to evolve.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Sometimes a Civil War is required in order for a nation to evolve.

Or perish.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Sometimes a Civil War is required in order for a nation to evolve.

Or for freedom to perish.

[Primus Pilus]

I think it is shameful that Romans had to kill each other in civil wars. If Rome was spared from civil wars it would have been stronger to conquer more lands.

 

Please comment.

 

Conquer more lands... no. Fully incorporate that which they already maintained... yes. Rome certainly would've been stronger without civil war, but such strength would not necessarily led to external conquest. (Though understanding the nature of man, we can presume it certainly would've been attempted)

[Kosmo]

What Civil Wars?

The ones between Marius and Octavian?

Rome recovered fully after that.

Or the bloody ways of imperial succesion?

Not the wars themselves were a problem, but the fact that they would endlessly repeat. They needed a Civil War to end the repetitive system, but their political thinking died at a certain point. Maybe between Marius and Octavian. They just kept changing people, but the system was the same. Disgusting. Almost like a democracy.

 

Whaz so civil 'bout war anyway ?

 

Sorry, I had to say it!

[docoflove1974]

Any war, be it against a foreign land or members of one's own, can be seen as shameful...but there are times when diplomacy breaks down, tempers flare, and the battle begins. As terrible as it is, it's often the way that conflicts are resolved, regardless of the civilization.

Edited August 22, 2007 by docoflove1974

[caldrail]

I think it is shameful that Romans had to kill each other in civil wars. If Rome was spared from civil wars it would have been stronger to conquer more lands.

 

Please comment.

 

Are civil wars more shameful than conquering another mans land?

[Klingan]

I think it is shameful that Romans had to kill each other in civil wars. If Rome was spared from civil wars it would have been stronger to conquer more lands.

 

Please comment.

 

Are civil wars more shameful than conquering another mans land?

 

I get the feeling that CL is trying to say it was a shame that the Romans engaged in civil war, not in conquest. (Might be mistaken, my English is far from perfect.)

[Cassius Loginus]

I think it is shameful that Romans had to kill each other in civil wars. If Rome was spared from civil wars it would have been stronger to conquer more lands.

 

Please comment.

 

Are civil wars more shameful than conquering another mans land?

 

 

The Romans were brutal but were they conquered they spread civilisation and the PAX ROMANA. I do not imagine how the world could have been without the Roman Civilisation.

[DecimusCaesar]

The only truly devestating Civil Wars that had terrible reprucussions for the future were the Civil Wars of the First century BC , which ultimately led to the downfall of the Republic, and the Civil Wars of the Later Empire (late 4-5th Centuries AD) which seriously impared Rome's ability to deal successfully with invading barbarian tribes.

 

This is not to downplay the other Civil wars (such as that of AD 69) but the others would not have such destructive (Later Empire) and revolutionary (First Century BC) consequences for the Romans.

[caldrail]

The Romans were brutal but were they conquered they spread civilisation and the PAX ROMANA. I do not imagine how the world could have been without the Roman Civilisation.

 

The modern west would have been different for sure, having been either based on celtic, germanic, or islamic culture. Or would it? The reason I say that is because the medieval knights with all their supposed chivalry and law were descendants of the same people who trashed the western empire. In fact, roman language and a great deal of their culture survived because the church preserved it, and in most cases medieval barons were too greedy, warlike, and ambitious to worry themselves about history. There were exceptions of course, and whilst I can't remember any examples off-hand there were some kings of england in the middle ages who were studious and keen on learning etc. What would be missing are things like roman law.

 

For instance, in modern britain a murderer might walk free if he pays the weregild to the bereft family. You would have communal courts perhaps, presided over by a local Thane, whose family have run the local borough since the first world war. His word carries a lot of weight, but his powers have been reduced since the Reforms and things are a bit more democratic these days, and he's no longer automatically the commander of the borough militia. The priests have declared a sacrifice is necessary after all these floods we've been having. Well, perhaps you're too busy with your career to go down to the Circle, but then it'll be televised anyway. Mind you, your neighbour has been throwing rubbish into your back yard, so its off to get an appointment with the local reeve and he'll soon sort that idiot out! There's good news too. Our kings daughter has been wed to a scottish noble and therefore the border dispute in northumberland has been neatly avoided.

[sullafelix]

Any war, be it against a foreign land or members of one's own, can be seen as shameful...but there are times when diplomacy breaks down, tempers flare, and the battle begins. As terrible as it is, it's often the way that conflicts are resolved, regardless of the civilization.

 

 

A sense a little bit of modern cultural bias creeping in here... Remember we may all be fully paid up pacifists but to a Roman war was the only true way of winning Glory and glory was what what it was all about and seen as very honourable. Having said that civil war was seen as a terrible thing. However, and there are many threads about this up here somewhere I am sure so I won't go on. Civil war under the Republic was entirely ineviytable due to some inherent weaknesses in the system the most obvious one being that the whole thing hinged and ran on personal ambition.

 

SF

[caldrail]

Its not just politics, its the nature of the beast. We humans are social animals and therefore at times our pack competes with another for whatever reason. War is an extension of natural violence but being such nasty little creatures, we don't have the 'ritualised' bloodless contests that some species do. Personally, I think war is a terrible thing, but then if you don't defend your freedoms then someone will take them away sooner or later. Thats something the romans understood very early on, and they acted on that wisdom, but in their case they started to enjoy the taste of victory - at least until that martial spirit ebbed away in the late empire, requiring them to hire on tons of barbarians to fight for them.