3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoMy 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 agoNo, 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 agoMore 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 agoThe above was a joking reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asterix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asterix
- Kamq 3y agoAhh, fair enough. I'm not familiar with the material. Looks fun
- csomar 3y agoThere 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 agoEven 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.