4 ms·

If you're so inclined to go down a rabbit hole of 100+ hours of content, I highly suggest having a listen to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History [1]. Dan is particula

by cletus 7y ago

If you're so inclined to go down a rabbit hole of 100+ hours of content, I highly suggest having a listen to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History [1]. Dan is particularly interested in military history, especially ancient military history. He has an episode on Caesar's conquest of Gaul (which he argues in any kind of modern context would be called a genocide) as well as a series on the great Persian kings, called the King of Kings. This is specifically about the Achaemenid Empire talking about Cyrus II, Darius, Xerxes and the likes. Now as Dan would say, he doesn't find scientific and technological advancements particularly interesting (from a historical perspective). Like if Edison didn't invent the light bulb, someone else would've. What he finds far more interesting is historical events that could've completely changed the course of history and one of those was the Battle of Marathon [2]. This was a battle between the Persians and the Greeks that the Greeks somehow won. Had they lost it would've changed the entire history of Europe given how important Greek culture was to everyone from the Romans on. Bear in mind when this happened, Rome was a small regional power at best. He talks about the psychology of ancient warfare. One thing he notes is that the closer someone is to someone, the harder it is for them to (psychologically) kill them. From a gun at a distance is completely different to hand-to-hand combat. At this time, the Greeks fought with spears that were very broad. Stab someone in the guts with one of those and their insides would literally spill out to the point where the likes of Herodotus described the ground at Marathon as being soaked red in blood. Likewise, ancient culture and justice must be almost incomprehensible to us. Fun fact: the origin of the word "decimate". When a province rebelled against Roman Rule and Rome would crush them, insurrection was punished particularly harshly. People would be put in groups of 10 (hence DECImate) where each group was responsible for choosing which of those 10 would die and for killing that person. How did people cope with these things? How would PTSD fit into this world? EDIT: the way some downvote on HN makes me sad. [1]: https://www.dancarlin.com/ https://www.dancarlin.com/ [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Marathon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Marathon

Amezarak 7y ago
Decimation was a military punishment. I cannot think of any time it was used on civilians. It was employed not just for mutiny, but for desertion and cowardice. If your unit panicked and routed during a battle, it might very well be subjected to decimation later - probably a powerful motivator.
gherkinnn 7y ago
This excellent blog series [0] goes in to a little more details on the Roman Conquest, in the specific context of many cultures glorifying the primitive other as being morally pure and more capable fighters. Genocide is the only word to use. I previously had no idea just how, erm, effective the Romans were. > historical events that could've completely changed the course of history The battle of Teutoburg Forest [1][2] is another one. Had the Roman general Varius not fallen in to Arminius ambush, things might have been vastly different. The Romans never again had a solid footing beyond the Rhine and the battle was used again and again to forge German identity. > One thing he notes is that the closer someone is to someone, the harder it is for them to (psychologically) kill them. This same effect is discussed extensively in the book On Killing [3] and similar conclusions can be drawn from the Milgram Experiment [4]. On Killing also mentions that stabbing weapons are psychologically harder to use than slashing weapons. It specifically mentions the Roman Gladius. 0 - https://acoup.blog/2020/01/17/collections-the-fremen-mirage-part-i-war-at-the-dawn-of-civilization/ https://acoup.blog/2020/01/17/collections-the-fremen-mirage-... 1 - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000f69q https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000f69q 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest 3 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Killing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Killing 4 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
- baud147258 7y ago
  > [The battle of Teutoburg Forest] was used again and again to forge German identity Interestingly, the defeat of Vercingetorix was also used as a mean of forging the French identity, so even a defeat can be used this way (though if Caesar had failed to invade Gaul, history might have been quite different too). Also in regard of using Teutoburg to build a national identity, the series on the Fremen Mirage [0] on the same blog talk about that idea too. [0] https://acoup.blog/2020/01/17/collections-the-fremen-mirage-part-i-war-at-the-dawn-of-civilization/ https://acoup.blog/2020/01/17/collections-the-fremen-mirage-...
rsynnott 7y ago
> When a province rebelled against Roman Rule and Rome would crush them, insurrection was punished particularly harshly. People would be put in groups of 10 (hence DECImate) where each group was responsible for choosing which of those 10 would die and for killing that person. This is incorrect. Decimation was a form of military discipline, not civilian, and it was _extremely_ rare for most of Rome's history. It was usually used for mass desertion. Thousands of people were executed for individual desertion during WW1, so you could argue that it's not THAT exotic a punishment. The Roman Empire _did_ do various nasty things to rebellious provinces (Judea is particularly notable), but again, really nothing that we haven't seen in 20th century wars, unfortunately.
- Spooky23 7y ago
  The poster was trying to make a point that I think stands even if there are some technical definitional issues. Roman history is long and practices vary. I don't think that you can critically look at the campaigns to conquer and pacify Gaul or Carthage without walking away with the understanding that mass killing (or enslavement) wasn't a tool wielded by the Romans.
  - rsynnott 7y ago
    Oh, sure; they did awful things. I'm just not sure that decimation is reasonable evidence for "Likewise, ancient culture and justice must be almost incomprehensible to us."; the Nazis did far, far worse, say. For that matter, their behavior in Gaul isn't evidence of it either; again, we unfortunately have many recent parallels.
jeltz 7y ago
Your example of massacring the population of rebelling provinces can be found much closer to our time. Punishing rebels like that has been common throughout history. - 1750s Dzungar genocide - 1860s Circassian genocide - 1900s Herero and Namaqua genocide
- Spooky23 7y ago
  - <Right Now> Various Mideast locales.
third_I 7y ago
> EDIT: the way some downvote on HN makes me sad. There are many 'trolls' around here (comes with the popularity), who will downvote based on opinion to begin with, instead of writing a counter-argument (or their "problem" with the post is simplistic, first-degree, unsophisticated). Ignore them. Those who come to read/learn usually do. We read arguments, rebuttals or agreements, and seldom consider scores at face value. Also, engagement is probably the real salience of votes, whether up or down: it means someone got 'triggered' enough to click, and that usually means you touched something (assuming the comment isn't misleading, factually wrong, etc). Typically, a post such as yours is interesting, and warrants no downvotes whatsoever.

by cletus 7y ago

Amezarak 7y ago

Decimation was a military punishment. I cannot think of any time it was used on civilians. It was employed not just for mutiny, but for desertion and cowardice. If your unit panicked and routed during a battle, it might very well be subjected to decimation later - probably a powerful motivator.

gherkinnn 7y ago

This excellent blog series [0] goes in to a little more details on the Roman Conquest, in the specific context of many cultures glorifying the primitive other as being morally pure and more capable fighters. Genocide is the only word to use. I previously had no idea just how, erm, effective the Romans were. > historical events that could've completely changed the course of history The battle of Teutoburg Forest [1][2] is another one. Had the Roman general Varius not fallen in to Arminius ambush, things might have been vastly different. The Romans never again had a solid footing beyond the Rhine and the battle was used again and again to forge German identity. > One thing he notes is that the closer someone is to someone, the harder it is for them to (psychologically) kill them. This same effect is discussed extensively in the book On Killing [3] and similar conclusions can be drawn from the Milgram Experiment [4]. On Killing also mentions that stabbing weapons are psychologically harder to use than slashing weapons. It specifically mentions the Roman Gladius. 0 - https://acoup.blog/2020/01/17/collections-the-fremen-mirage-part-i-war-at-the-dawn-of-civilization/ https://acoup.blog/2020/01/17/collections-the-fremen-mirage-... 1 - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000f69q https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000f69q 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest 3 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Killing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Killing 4 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

baud147258 7y ago
> [The battle of Teutoburg Forest] was used again and again to forge German identity Interestingly, the defeat of Vercingetorix was also used as a mean of forging the French identity, so even a defeat can be used this way (though if Caesar had failed to invade Gaul, history might have been quite different too). Also in regard of using Teutoburg to build a national identity, the series on the Fremen Mirage [0] on the same blog talk about that idea too. [0] https://acoup.blog/2020/01/17/collections-the-fremen-mirage-part-i-war-at-the-dawn-of-civilization/ https://acoup.blog/2020/01/17/collections-the-fremen-mirage-...

rsynnott 7y ago

> When a province rebelled against Roman Rule and Rome would crush them, insurrection was punished particularly harshly. People would be put in groups of 10 (hence DECImate) where each group was responsible for choosing which of those 10 would die and for killing that person. This is incorrect. Decimation was a form of military discipline, not civilian, and it was _extremely_ rare for most of Rome's history. It was usually used for mass desertion. Thousands of people were executed for individual desertion during WW1, so you could argue that it's not THAT exotic a punishment. The Roman Empire _did_ do various nasty things to rebellious provinces (Judea is particularly notable), but again, really nothing that we haven't seen in 20th century wars, unfortunately.

Spooky23 7y ago
The poster was trying to make a point that I think stands even if there are some technical definitional issues. Roman history is long and practices vary. I don't think that you can critically look at the campaigns to conquer and pacify Gaul or Carthage without walking away with the understanding that mass killing (or enslavement) wasn't a tool wielded by the Romans.
- rsynnott 7y ago
  Oh, sure; they did awful things. I'm just not sure that decimation is reasonable evidence for "Likewise, ancient culture and justice must be almost incomprehensible to us."; the Nazis did far, far worse, say. For that matter, their behavior in Gaul isn't evidence of it either; again, we unfortunately have many recent parallels.

jeltz 7y ago

Your example of massacring the population of rebelling provinces can be found much closer to our time. Punishing rebels like that has been common throughout history. - 1750s Dzungar genocide - 1860s Circassian genocide - 1900s Herero and Namaqua genocide

Spooky23 7y ago
- <Right Now> Various Mideast locales.

third_I 7y ago

> EDIT: the way some downvote on HN makes me sad. There are many 'trolls' around here (comes with the popularity), who will downvote based on opinion to begin with, instead of writing a counter-argument (or their "problem" with the post is simplistic, first-degree, unsophisticated). Ignore them. Those who come to read/learn usually do. We read arguments, rebuttals or agreements, and seldom consider scores at face value. Also, engagement is probably the real salience of votes, whether up or down: it means someone got 'triggered' enough to click, and that usually means you touched something (assuming the comment isn't misleading, factually wrong, etc). Typically, a post such as yours is interesting, and warrants no downvotes whatsoever.