5 ms·

I think what's surprising to me is all the people who seem to think that the chief method of conquest is replacement, when it's long been established that it's

I think what's surprising to me is all the people who seem to think that the chief method of conquest is replacement, when it's long been established that it's indoctrination. The Romans didn't kill off native peoples - they subjugated them, taxed them, and forced them to comply with some Roman norms. Their greater success though, was getting the people to want to be Roman. And who wouldn't want to be Roman when the simple words "Civis romanus sum" were an effective passport through an empire that stretched months of travel? When it opened commercial opportunities with a large and relatively effective bureaucracy? A nation that built roads and exported consumer goods, spices and wines and finery, like none had ever before it? Most of Europe is still interconnected by the roads the Romans paved. They've been repaved with macadam, but the lines are the same. People imitated the Romans because they were powerful. They formed alliances and married their daughters off to Romans who would keep them in relative luxury. The conquest was equally about minds as of arms. This has been true in all conquests. Some have been more brutal about instilling their culture than the Romans, and to that end, they were more effective at suppressing or destroying the previous culture. But ultimately, it is the conquered people taking on the aspects of their conqueror more than genocide and recolonization that has succeeded in spreading cultures throughout history.

Kamq 3y ago
> The Romans didn't kill off native peoples - they subjugated them, taxed them, and forced them to comply with some Roman norms. That's painting with a bit of a broad brush. The Romans had no problems killing off large swaths of the population. Depopulation was a tactic that was absolutely on the table. For example, during the conquest of Gaul, ~1/3 of the population was killed and another ~1/3 were sold off as slaves. The tactics you're talking about were used on the remaining 1/3. Those tactics, admittedly, work quite well when you only have to deal with the friendliest 1/3 of a population.
- consilient 3y ago
  > For example, during the conquest of Gaul, ~1/3 of the population was killed and another ~1/3 were sold off as slaves. This is probably a misremembered quote from Plutarch: > For although it was not full ten years that he waged war in Gaul, he took by storm more than eight hundred cities, subdued three hundred nations, and fought pitched battles at different times with three million men, of whom he slew one million in hand to hand fighting and took as many more prisoners. The total population of Gaul was certainly higher - contemporary estimates range from 5 (assuming very high mobilization and highly exaggerated Roman numbers) to 20 (taking the highest ancient numbers at face value) million.
  - Kamq 3y ago
    My source was an episode of Hardcore History. I believe the population estimate he gives is 6 million (which would make sense if there were 3 million men) with 2 million deaths and two million slaves. I'll give it a re-listen to see if I can find the source he was quoting from, but if anyone's heard the episode, it's the part where he's explaining why it's sometimes called the "Celtic Holocaust".
- ekianjo 3y ago
  No, certainly not one third of the population in Gaul.
- slater 3y ago
  > For example, during the conquest of Gaul, ~1/3 of the population was killed and another ~1/3 were sold off as slaves. The tactics you're talking about were used on the remaining 1/3. And that one small, pesky village of Gauls the Romans just could NOT conquer, try as they might.
  - Kamq 3y ago
    More like the third that were already most likely to be their allies (or to be receptive to being roman clients). Hence the comment about the tactics working on the "1/3 of the friendliest population".
    - GauntletWizard 3y ago
      The above was a joking reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asterix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asterix
      - Kamq 3y ago
        Ahh, fair enough. I'm not familiar with the material. Looks fun
- csomar 3y ago
  There are (and will be) no clear proof of that. In my opinion, these conquests concerns the elite of society. These get replaced. The commoners (ie: farmers?) they just show up to market again with a new ruler.
  - samus 3y ago
    Even if it it is brief, a siege usually had very detrimental effects on the surrounding areas as the invading army "forages" for supplies. Also, the Romans were not beyond indiscriminately slaughtering (not only plundering) or deporting populations that put up formidable resistance. E.g. Siege of Avaricum. Such depopulated areas were often awarded to other tribes or to retiring soldiers for resettlement. Caesar recorded it himself in his annals. They are not entirely reliable, but the essential points are probably true.
thaumasiotes 3y ago
> I think what's surprising to me is all the people who seem to think that the chief method of conquest is replacement, when it's long been established that it's indoctrination. > This has been true in all conquests. You lost it at the end there. Compare the United States. Some conquests are a small group installing themselves at the top of society. Others are a large group installing themselves at all levels.
- prottog 3y ago
  I mean, all conquests are about the victors being at the top. What kind of conqueror would put themselves at the bottom?
  - thaumasiotes 3y ago
    The kind who's part of a group so large that all top positions are already filled.
virgulino 3y ago
The Romans built a wall (the Great Pict Wall) bisecting Britain because they were so afraid of the Picts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian%27s_Wall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian%27s_Wall
- KMag 3y ago
  And later, the Antonine wall a bit further north. Though, it's probably more accurate to say the walls were built to reduce the costs of Pictish raids. I doubt the governor in Londinium woke in a cold sweat fearing Pictish invasion, even prior to Hadrian's wall being built.
  - virgulino 3y ago
    I bet the governor had enough on his plate managing the Brittunculi. 8-)
philwelch 3y ago
> I think what's surprising to me is all the people who seem to think that the chief method of conquest is replacement, when it's long been established that it's indoctrination. The Romans… …are a singular example. I can name a singular counterexample: the R1 Y-chromosome haplotype completely replaced the preexisting indigenous Y-chromosome haplotypes across Europe, indicating that the male population was replaced wholesale. In more recent history, North American and Australian populations were also predominantly replaced with settlers, as were parts of South America.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  But your later day examples were caused mostly by disease, not strategy. The deaths caused by europeans arriving in the americas (without fighting) are estimated at 10% of all living humans of that era.
  - philwelch 3y ago
    Yes but the disease and resulting depopulation was probably a necessary precondition to European settlement nonetheless. Even as it was, European settlers themselves often assimilated into indigenous communities; this is the most likely explanation for the lost colony of Roanoke, and smaller scale instances of this sort of thing were well-known late enough that Benjamin Franklin wrote about the phenomenon. Without disease and depopulation, there would have likely been no good uncontested sites to colonize in the first place, and the American Indians would have likely been able to resist colonization far more effectively. At any rate, there’s no generalization to be made either way. In some cases, conquest involves an existing population accepting foreign rule; in other cases, it involves population replacement. Even counting which cases count which way is difficult and controversial.

Kamq 3y ago

> The Romans didn't kill off native peoples - they subjugated them, taxed them, and forced them to comply with some Roman norms. That's painting with a bit of a broad brush. The Romans had no problems killing off large swaths of the population. Depopulation was a tactic that was absolutely on the table. For example, during the conquest of Gaul, ~1/3 of the population was killed and another ~1/3 were sold off as slaves. The tactics you're talking about were used on the remaining 1/3. Those tactics, admittedly, work quite well when you only have to deal with the friendliest 1/3 of a population.

consilient 3y ago
> For example, during the conquest of Gaul, ~1/3 of the population was killed and another ~1/3 were sold off as slaves. This is probably a misremembered quote from Plutarch: > For although it was not full ten years that he waged war in Gaul, he took by storm more than eight hundred cities, subdued three hundred nations, and fought pitched battles at different times with three million men, of whom he slew one million in hand to hand fighting and took as many more prisoners. The total population of Gaul was certainly higher - contemporary estimates range from 5 (assuming very high mobilization and highly exaggerated Roman numbers) to 20 (taking the highest ancient numbers at face value) million.
- Kamq 3y ago
  My source was an episode of Hardcore History. I believe the population estimate he gives is 6 million (which would make sense if there were 3 million men) with 2 million deaths and two million slaves. I'll give it a re-listen to see if I can find the source he was quoting from, but if anyone's heard the episode, it's the part where he's explaining why it's sometimes called the "Celtic Holocaust".
ekianjo 3y ago
No, certainly not one third of the population in Gaul.
slater 3y ago
> For example, during the conquest of Gaul, ~1/3 of the population was killed and another ~1/3 were sold off as slaves. The tactics you're talking about were used on the remaining 1/3. And that one small, pesky village of Gauls the Romans just could NOT conquer, try as they might.
- Kamq 3y ago
  More like the third that were already most likely to be their allies (or to be receptive to being roman clients). Hence the comment about the tactics working on the "1/3 of the friendliest population".
  - GauntletWizard 3y ago
    The above was a joking reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asterix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asterix
    - Kamq 3y ago
      Ahh, fair enough. I'm not familiar with the material. Looks fun
csomar 3y ago
There are (and will be) no clear proof of that. In my opinion, these conquests concerns the elite of society. These get replaced. The commoners (ie: farmers?) they just show up to market again with a new ruler.
- samus 3y ago
  Even if it it is brief, a siege usually had very detrimental effects on the surrounding areas as the invading army "forages" for supplies. Also, the Romans were not beyond indiscriminately slaughtering (not only plundering) or deporting populations that put up formidable resistance. E.g. Siege of Avaricum. Such depopulated areas were often awarded to other tribes or to retiring soldiers for resettlement. Caesar recorded it himself in his annals. They are not entirely reliable, but the essential points are probably true.

thaumasiotes 3y ago

> I think what's surprising to me is all the people who seem to think that the chief method of conquest is replacement, when it's long been established that it's indoctrination. > This has been true in all conquests. You lost it at the end there. Compare the United States. Some conquests are a small group installing themselves at the top of society. Others are a large group installing themselves at all levels.

prottog 3y ago
I mean, all conquests are about the victors being at the top. What kind of conqueror would put themselves at the bottom?
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  The kind who's part of a group so large that all top positions are already filled.

virgulino 3y ago

The Romans built a wall (the Great Pict Wall) bisecting Britain because they were so afraid of the Picts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian%27s_Wall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian%27s_Wall

KMag 3y ago
And later, the Antonine wall a bit further north. Though, it's probably more accurate to say the walls were built to reduce the costs of Pictish raids. I doubt the governor in Londinium woke in a cold sweat fearing Pictish invasion, even prior to Hadrian's wall being built.
- virgulino 3y ago
  I bet the governor had enough on his plate managing the Brittunculi. 8-)

philwelch 3y ago

> I think what's surprising to me is all the people who seem to think that the chief method of conquest is replacement, when it's long been established that it's indoctrination. The Romans… …are a singular example. I can name a singular counterexample: the R1 Y-chromosome haplotype completely replaced the preexisting indigenous Y-chromosome haplotypes across Europe, indicating that the male population was replaced wholesale. In more recent history, North American and Australian populations were also predominantly replaced with settlers, as were parts of South America.

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
But your later day examples were caused mostly by disease, not strategy. The deaths caused by europeans arriving in the americas (without fighting) are estimated at 10% of all living humans of that era.
- philwelch 3y ago
  Yes but the disease and resulting depopulation was probably a necessary precondition to European settlement nonetheless. Even as it was, European settlers themselves often assimilated into indigenous communities; this is the most likely explanation for the lost colony of Roanoke, and smaller scale instances of this sort of thing were well-known late enough that Benjamin Franklin wrote about the phenomenon. Without disease and depopulation, there would have likely been no good uncontested sites to colonize in the first place, and the American Indians would have likely been able to resist colonization far more effectively. At any rate, there’s no generalization to be made either way. In some cases, conquest involves an existing population accepting foreign rule; in other cases, it involves population replacement. Even counting which cases count which way is difficult and controversial.