You're viewing a single thread.
Brittain before Roman rule was probably even happier. But i guess when you're the conquering army you get to decide what is and isnt "civilized"
What have the Romans ever done for us??
You know, besides the aqueducts, the roads, baths, public sanitation, law and order...
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.
Just to make sure: this was a movie reference to Life of Brian.
..... Bro where were you yesterday?? Hahaha we've started a whole philosophy debate now uuuuuuughhhhh
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."
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?
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."
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?
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?
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?
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.
This is a... Confusing comment. Im not sure how to respond. Just to clarify, you dont see Roman conquest as racially motivated? And, are you saying that the act of conquest via force is morally neutral so long as its not racially motivated? And furthermore, you don't see acts of violence as morally negative so long as others are committing the same acts of violence?
Pre-Roman Britain was famed for its many aquaducts and quality roads
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.
Who needs clean water when you have poetry to make you feel good while dying of dysentery?
username checks out
And we had a cracking sundial.