… your rebuttal had the clear implication that the ‘populated regions’ that the Romans conquered didn’t engage in the same kind of warfare and enslavement that the Romans themselves did, which is patently untrue.
and please don’t reply with “every empire did that”. because they weren’t really invading competing empires but populated regions in their way.
That’s 100% things you said I said, not things I said.
If I said I don’t feel bad for the end of expansionists empires that enslaved and destroyed other cultures. It is safe to assume that I don’t feel bad for the end of expansionists empires that enslaved and destroyed other cultures. not that I “only don’t care about expansionists empires that enslaved and destroyed other cultures if said empire is this specific one”
Wait, do you think expansionists empires are a good thing?
I think that the notion that Rome did anything that the people it conquered weren’t also doing (as you claimed in the excerpt) is absurd; and furthermore, that the idea that the Roman Empire was involved in the business of destroying other cultures (as you claim in the second quote) speaks as to a lack of understanding of how the Roman Empire worked. Presumably because the word ‘Empire’ has negative and modern connotations, considering the emphasis you keep going back to the word with.
Wait, were they? was Egypt an expansist empire thing to conquer the world? didn’t they even set up nations for the defeated sea people? by today’s standards Egypt sucked back then. but by the classical period, Rome sucked too.
You seem to relish in your love of rome. which is a bit of a red flag.
it’s ok to acknowledge that it was impressive empire, while acknowledging that it also sucked and it was bound to collapse sooner or later from it’s own bullshit.
Wait, were they? was Egypt an expansist empire thing to conquer the world?
… do you really not know? Are you really making this argument from a place of ignorance that serious?
… yes. Yes, Egypt was an expansionist empire. It was an intensely expansionist empire. Under native rulers, under Nubian rulers, and under Ptolemaic rulers alike.
didn’t they even set up nations for the defeated sea people?
… the… the Sea Peoples the Egyptians defeated whose warriors they conscripted into the Egyptian army and sent out onto the frontiers of the Egyptian empire to fight Egypt’s enemies?
by today’s standards Egypt sucked back then. but by the classical period, Rome sucked too.
By today’s standards both polities were awful, and unambiguously so. By the standards of the period, the Principate era of the Roman Empire was exceptional in most areas - and certainly not some aberrant polity doing conquest and slavery on poor foreign peoples who had never done any such thing in their lives.
The Celtic polities and Germanic tribes they warred against regularly, and with great vigor, conquered, enslaved, and even exterminated their neighbors. Same with the Iberian polities, same with Egypt and the other Successor States. Rome conquering them was no different than what the conquered peoples did to their neighbors (and fellow countrymen) - save that Rome’s successes were more lasting.
You seem to relish in your love of rome. which is a bit of a red flag.
I do adore the aesthetic and history of Rome, but my irritation here is centered around unfortunately all-too-common pop history myths that you’re insisting on.
it’s ok to acknowledge that it was impressive empire, while acknowledging that it also sucked and it was bound to collapse sooner or later from it’s own bullshit.
At no point have I denied that by modern standards, Rome was not good.
The point of contention that this conversation started on was about the living standards before and after the Empire for the common people.
The argument escalated into a broader issue of the relative morality of the Roman Empire when you insisted that the ‘populated regions’ it conquered were substantially different from the Empire in their behavior with regards to conquest and slavery. This became more grating with the revelation that you did not understand that Egypt was an expansionist empire, when it was one of the first in recorded history.
It became more contentious when you connected the destruction of cultures, a common feature of the empires of early modernity, with the Roman Empire, which was famously multicultural.
The determinist view that it was ‘bound to collapse’, especially pared with your previous implication of the Roman Empire as a plunder economy, a position that went out of style in academia in the late 19th century, is immensely irritating.
… your rebuttal had the clear implication that the ‘populated regions’ that the Romans conquered didn’t engage in the same kind of warfare and enslavement that the Romans themselves did, which is patently untrue.
That’s 100% things you said I said, not things I said.
If I said I don’t feel bad for the end of expansionists empires that enslaved and destroyed other cultures. It is safe to assume that I don’t feel bad for the end of expansionists empires that enslaved and destroyed other cultures. not that I “only don’t care about expansionists empires that enslaved and destroyed other cultures if said empire is this specific one”
Lord.
So we are at the same “Empire is my trigger word” that I explained my irritation with at the start.
Wait, do you think expansionists empires are a good thing?
I think that the notion that Rome did anything that the people it conquered weren’t also doing (as you claimed in the excerpt) is absurd; and furthermore, that the idea that the Roman Empire was involved in the business of destroying other cultures (as you claim in the second quote) speaks as to a lack of understanding of how the Roman Empire worked. Presumably because the word ‘Empire’ has negative and modern connotations, considering the emphasis you keep going back to the word with.
didn’t know the Iberians and Egyptians were trying to conquer Rome.
This really speaks to your worldview.
I thought you didn’t feel bad for expansionist polities that enslaved and conquered their neighbors?
That is comes from an understanding of Classical antiquity instead of a Pavlovian reaction to the word ‘Empire’?
Wait, were they? was Egypt an expansist empire thing to conquer the world? didn’t they even set up nations for the defeated sea people? by today’s standards Egypt sucked back then. but by the classical period, Rome sucked too.
You seem to relish in your love of rome. which is a bit of a red flag.
it’s ok to acknowledge that it was impressive empire, while acknowledging that it also sucked and it was bound to collapse sooner or later from it’s own bullshit.
… do you really not know? Are you really making this argument from a place of ignorance that serious?
… yes. Yes, Egypt was an expansionist empire. It was an intensely expansionist empire. Under native rulers, under Nubian rulers, and under Ptolemaic rulers alike.
… the… the Sea Peoples the Egyptians defeated whose warriors they conscripted into the Egyptian army and sent out onto the frontiers of the Egyptian empire to fight Egypt’s enemies?
By today’s standards both polities were awful, and unambiguously so. By the standards of the period, the Principate era of the Roman Empire was exceptional in most areas - and certainly not some aberrant polity doing conquest and slavery on poor foreign peoples who had never done any such thing in their lives.
The Celtic polities and Germanic tribes they warred against regularly, and with great vigor, conquered, enslaved, and even exterminated their neighbors. Same with the Iberian polities, same with Egypt and the other Successor States. Rome conquering them was no different than what the conquered peoples did to their neighbors (and fellow countrymen) - save that Rome’s successes were more lasting.
I do adore the aesthetic and history of Rome, but my irritation here is centered around unfortunately all-too-common pop history myths that you’re insisting on.
At no point have I denied that by modern standards, Rome was not good.
The point of contention that this conversation started on was about the living standards before and after the Empire for the common people.
The argument escalated into a broader issue of the relative morality of the Roman Empire when you insisted that the ‘populated regions’ it conquered were substantially different from the Empire in their behavior with regards to conquest and slavery. This became more grating with the revelation that you did not understand that Egypt was an expansionist empire, when it was one of the first in recorded history.
It became more contentious when you connected the destruction of cultures, a common feature of the empires of early modernity, with the Roman Empire, which was famously multicultural.
The determinist view that it was ‘bound to collapse’, especially pared with your previous implication of the Roman Empire as a plunder economy, a position that went out of style in academia in the late 19th century, is immensely irritating.