• @NateNate60
    link
    English
    269 days ago

    What have the Romans ever done for us??

    You know, besides the aqueducts, the roads, baths, public sanitation, law and order…

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -2
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      You… You responded to the wrong comment my guy

      Edit: No actually I’ll take this one. Do you seriously think romans invented roads and aquaducts? They didn’t. Or are suggesting Romans were some kind of benevolent force bestowing these technologies for free? Because that wasn’t the case either.

      • @PugJesusOPM
        link
        English
        149 days ago

        Or are suggesting Romans were some kind of benevolent force bestowing these technologies for free?

        Ah, almost 2000 years later and we’re still having the same arguments.

        Rabbi Yehuda opened and said: How pleasant are the actions of this nation, the Romans, as they established marketplaces, established bridges, and established bathhouses. Rabbi Yosei was silent. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai responded and said: Everything that they established, they established only for their own purposes. They established marketplaces, to place prostitutes in them; bathhouses, to pamper themselves; and bridges, to collect taxes from all who pass over them.

        “The Roman government did things which benefitted the public.”

        “Yes, but they did them SELFISHLY, so it doesn’t count. Unlike the local rulers, who definitely would have done so selflessly.”

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2
          edit-2
          9 days ago

          Raises interesting philosophical questions i guess. Is an action taken with the intention of exploitation that unintentionally ends up being beneficial ultimately a good action?

          • @PugJesusOPM
            link
            English
            78 days ago

            Is an action taken with the intention of exploitation that unintentionally ends up being beneficial ultimately a good action?

            Good in what sense? ‘Good’ as in ‘virtuous’ would be debatable, but ‘good’ as in ‘a positive benefit’ is pretty inarguable, and furthermore disputing would suggest that very little has happened that is beneficial in human history outside of the individual level. Except, perhaps ironically, some of the most minor alleviations of suffering.

            Roman rule (let’s not get into conquest for now) was ‘good’ insofar as it had serious, tangible, and accessible benefits to the vast majority of the population compared to what came before and after.

            Or, in the words of the Emperor Tiberius, “A good shepherd shears his sheep; he does not slaughter them.”

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              2
              edit-2
              8 days ago

              Hmm, personally I dont think you can so casually brush off the conquest part. How many people would you accept being murdered, raped, and enlaved in order to justify this positive benifit? Is there a specific number? If the supposed benifit was greater, would you accept more people being killed? How big does a benefit to future generations need to be to justify killing and enslaving the current population?

              • @PugJesusOPM
                link
                English
                28 days ago

                Hmm, personally I dont think you can so casually brush off the conquest part.

                It’s not ‘brushing off’, it’s a different question/discussion entirely.

                How many people would you accept being murdered, raped, and enlaved in order to justify this positive benifit?

                Would ‘equal or less than the amount caused by native warfare in the same period’ be an acceptable response?

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  1
                  edit-2
                  8 days ago

                  It might be, but if you take that stance then I’d ask you to take the argument to its logical end point. Was American manifest destinty acceptable because it technically put a stop to tribal warfare? Was the British colonization of India ok because it unified waring states? Or, on the flip side, is Rome morally exceptional amoung aggressive conquerer states? And why?

                  • @PugJesusOPM
                    link
                    English
                    28 days ago

                    I would argue that in the case of both America and Britain, the downsides of the racist regimes which they brought far outweighed the benefit of ending internecine warfare. If those regimes were, at that time, less horrifically racist, I might be inclined to regard it as neither positive nor negative; just another instance of conquest and warfare as is common before the 20th century. I don’t regard the Sioux as inherently immoral for making war on the Pawnee; nor would I regard the Prussians as inherently immoral for making war on the Austrians. It was a different time.

                    If anything, I would regard European colonizers as morally exceptional amongst aggressive conqueror states - exceptional in a negative way, insofar as their conduct was significantly worse than the conduct of their contemporaries and even of themselves in non-colonial wars.

                    The question of Roman conquest is far from the question of the benefits of Roman civilization - regardless of the opinion of the conquest, that Roman civilization came with significant benefits to those who were conquered is pretty undeniable. My opinion of Roman conquest is simple - that it was aggressive in a time of unchecked aggression; that it brought death in a time of death; that it was murder in a time of murder. If you’re asking if I think there are going to be many Roman conquerors at the pearly gates, my answer is no; if you’re asking if I think that Rome’s behavior in conquest was worse than their contemporaries, my answer is likewise no, and I don’t intend to condemn Rome for unexceptional behavior any more than I intend to condemn the Gauls or the Persians for unexceptional behavior.

          • @Maalus
            link
            English
            58 days ago

            The difference is local rulers did shit selfishly all the time, yet there weren’t aqueducts or marketplaces built. And to say shit like “oh they built bathhouses to pamper themselves” as if they couldn’t be used to pamper people other than Romans, or that they built bridges and asked people to pay for using them, as if they magically blocked off the “old way” of going across instead of making an incredibly convenient new bridge.

            Conquest sucks, that’s obvious. But let’s not act as if their lives didn’t improve after the conquest.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              0
              edit-2
              8 days ago

              Thats really easy to say in hindsight, in a world where almost all the sources are roman. But imagine you could go back in time, do you think your argument would be very compelling to people being subjected by romans?

              Not to mention how doubtful it is that every single tribe and nation conquered by Rome somehow ended up bountiful and happy like some history enthusiasts would have you believe.

              Theres also the question of whether these people could have made said advancements on their own, or through peaceful trade and exchange of ideas. Personally, i think they probably could have.

              • @PugJesusOPM
                link
                English
                28 days ago

                Thats really easy to say in hindsight, in a world where almost all the sources are roman. But imagine you could go back in time, do you think your argument would be very compelling to people being subjected by romans?

                Very often these arguments were compelling. The Romans of the Imperial era rarely conquered enemies solely by force of arms, but by subversion of locals to join their cause.

                Not to mention how doubtful it is that every single tribe and nation conquered by Rome somehow ended up bountiful and happy like some history enthusiasts would have you believe.

                Some were pushed out or wiped out. But most were living more-or-less their former lives, but with the advantages that come with being connected to a massive and stable empire.

                Theres also the question of whether these people could have made said advancements on their own, or through peaceful trade and exchange of ideas. Personally, i think they probably could have.

                Curious, then, that not only did they not make such advancements, but many of said advancements would disappear for a full millennia after the fall of Rome before re-emerging in Europe.

                The issue isn’t “Romans were smarter”, the issue is that Romans had a massive state apparatus capable of and interested in such improvements, and that doesn’t spring up overnight. Nor is it easily replaced or replicated.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  08 days ago

                  I feel your argument might be more compelling were it the case that romans never conquered by force of arms and their arguments were always compelling. Yet for some reason i seem to remember them being at war a lot of the time.

                  Furthermore, you’re forgetting that those ideas were never really roman in the first place, and they disappeared from even the core provinces during the decline, not just those conquered lands. The romans were never interested in innovation, you know that. They were on the cusp of an industrial revolution but never pursued it because what they liked their slaves, their traditions, and their conquest.

                  Also btw I’m in no way attacking you, im having fun debating and I hope you are too 👍

                  • @PugJesusOPM
                    link
                    English
                    18 days ago

                    I feel your argument might be more compelling were it the case that romans never conquered by force of arms and their arguments were always compelling. Yet for some reason i seem to remember them being at war a lot of the time.

                    You didn’t ask if their arguments were 100% successful in all cases, you asked if the people being subjected would find them compelling; my answer was that it doesn’t need to be a hypothetical - the Romans put great effort into persuasion, and those subjected peoples very often did find those arguments compelling.

                    Furthermore, you’re forgetting that those ideas were never really roman in the first place,

                    In the sense that no idea belongs to a single culture, uh, sure; but in the sense that the Romans were the only people doing the things we’re talking about at scale in Europe at the time? It was very much, and very exclusively, Roman.

                    and they disappeared from even the core provinces during the decline, not just those conquered lands.

                    Those core provinces which were so thoroughly depopulated by plague and invading Germanic tribes that you can read it in the ice caps? Yes, it does tend to make skill transmission difficult when everyone who isn’t dead has to go back to farming. Furthermore, that, if anything, reinforces my point - the Roman Empire offered something that was not easily replicated. When it was destroyed, that was not just swapping out one ruler for another - it was the loss of something of great value.

                    The romans were never interested in innovation, you know that.

                    That’s not even close to true. The Romans had a great deal of respect for innovation - arguably even more than the Greeks. What the Romans disdained was ‘impractical’ theory. Technological innovation was something that was not only recognized by the Romans, but regarded as laudatory and a key piece of civilization.

                    They were on the cusp of an industrial revolution but never pursued it because what they liked their slaves, their traditions, and their conquest.

                    Not even close to true. The question of a Roman industrial revolution is a common topic for alt-histories, but not one seriously considered in academia. Material technology was simply nowhere near where it needed to be. Roman ‘traditions’ were notoriously flexible, and conquest was in no way a replacement for the economy - and, in fact, most of Rome’s greatest conquests are in the less-wealthy era of the Republic, not that of the much-wealthier Empire, which only has a handful of provinces to its name.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          48 days ago

          … Bro where were you yesterday?? Hahaha we’ve started a whole philosophy debate now uuuuuuughhhhh

      • @scholar
        link
        English
        69 days ago

        Pre-Roman Britain was famed for its many aquaducts and quality roads

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          39 days ago

          They were famed for their metalwork, poetry, art, and horsemanship. But i suppose if one’s metric for cultural worth is aqueducts per square kilometer then ya i guess they needed to be conquered.

          • @Blue_Morpho
            link
            English
            38 days ago

            Who needs clean water when you have poetry to make you feel good while dying of dysentery?