3 ms·

As we've seen, genocide has become a recent term for almost any kind of warfare. It used to have a much more narrowly defined usage that was accordingly more me

As we've seen, genocide has become a recent term for almost any kind of warfare. It used to have a much more narrowly defined usage that was accordingly more meaningful. Caesar's goal in Gaul was certainly not the extermination of its people or its culture. He wanted to pacify Gaul and Germany, for his own glory, but also for very legitimate self-defense reasons. And the Romans, as a rule, were famously tolerant of other people's national pride, customs, and religions. And of course, the Gaul and German tribes were at least as brutal to each other as Caesar was to them. The entire region was filled with constantly warring tribes that would often commit something much closer to actual genocide. Caesar, and the later Romans, did a lot to reduce this internecine warfare. The reality of these kinds of events is a lot more nuanced than a simple label like "genocide" will allow.

qwytw 3y ago
> He wanted to pacify I'm not sure pacify is the right word. > but also for very legitimate self-defense reasons Not really. By that point the Celts weren't as much of a threat as they were 50-100+ years ago. If his goals were primarily 'pacification' and 'self-defense' a much more limited and cheaper campaign would've been more than sufficient. In any case the Roman senate didn't really consider the war to be necessary in that sense. > Caesar, and the later Romans, did a lot to reduce this internecine warfare. > commit something much closer to actual genocide That's a massive a stretch. Even the Romans themselves understood that e.g. the "They Make a Desert and Call it Peace" quote Tacitus put into into the mouth leaders of one of the tribes subjugated by the Romans. The Roman empire was almost entirely built on slave labor and exhortation of the territories they subjugated. It might have turned into something else in the later periods (by the 1st and 1nd centuries AD). But the Romans certainly did not really improve the lives of the people the conquered during the Republican period. > The reality of these kinds of events is a lot more nuanced than a simple label like "genocide" will allow. Well however you put it it was still an extremely violate imperialist war of conquest. Of course yes, technically it wasn't a genocide in the direct sense subjugating, enslaving and stealing their stuff rather than extermination were their primary goals.
- decentomyous 3y ago
  > The Roman empire was almost entirely built on slave labor and exhortation of the territories they subjugated. This is a description of virtually every ancient society in this region. The Romans were simply the most dominant. And as a rule, they were fairer and more tolerant than the entities they replaced. > By that point the Celts weren't as much of a threat as they were 50-100+ years ago. The argument that the Gauls were no longer a threat merely because it had been 40-something years since the last successful invasion of Roman territory doesn't make much sense. Nothing fundamental had changed. The Romans were stronger by then but the territories bordering Gaul were still at risk. Vercingetorix himself attempted an invasion of the Roman province as a response Caesar's invasion. > In any case the Roman senate didn't really consider the war to be necessary in that sense. This is really accepting ancient propaganda at face value. It's more accurate to say that Caesar's opponents in the senate claimed it was unnecessary as a means of attacking him politically. Most of these same Roman senators used the Roman army in much the same way when serving at governors in the provinces.
  - qwytw 3y ago
    > This is a description of virtually every ancient society in this region. Ok, I don't know why do I have to specify this but I meant the slave labor if hundreds of thousands (or millions) of foreigners they have subjugated (this was relatively unique in the Mediterranean). > The Romans were simply the most dominant. And as a rule, they were fairer and more tolerant than the entities they replaced. Except this wasn't really true. Certainly not in the Republican period. Extortive taxation, extreme levels of corruption and other issues weren't addressed until the imperial period. e.g. the cities/states rebelling in Asia minor hated the Romans enough to murder every single Italian they could find in the region: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiatic_Vespers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiatic_Vespers > The argument that the Gauls were no longer a threat merely because it had been 40-something years since the last successful invasion of Roman territory doesn't make much sense. I don't agree about 40 years.. Well it's tangential anyway and has little to do with Caesar's motivations. > Most of these same Roman senators used the Roman army in much the same way when serving at governors in the provinces. Maybe but certainly not to a such degree of course. However yes, the main thing that set him apart from all the other ambitious Roman aristocrats was how exceptionally successful he was.

qwytw 3y ago

> He wanted to pacify I'm not sure pacify is the right word. > but also for very legitimate self-defense reasons Not really. By that point the Celts weren't as much of a threat as they were 50-100+ years ago. If his goals were primarily 'pacification' and 'self-defense' a much more limited and cheaper campaign would've been more than sufficient. In any case the Roman senate didn't really consider the war to be necessary in that sense. > Caesar, and the later Romans, did a lot to reduce this internecine warfare. > commit something much closer to actual genocide That's a massive a stretch. Even the Romans themselves understood that e.g. the "They Make a Desert and Call it Peace" quote Tacitus put into into the mouth leaders of one of the tribes subjugated by the Romans. The Roman empire was almost entirely built on slave labor and exhortation of the territories they subjugated. It might have turned into something else in the later periods (by the 1st and 1nd centuries AD). But the Romans certainly did not really improve the lives of the people the conquered during the Republican period. > The reality of these kinds of events is a lot more nuanced than a simple label like "genocide" will allow. Well however you put it it was still an extremely violate imperialist war of conquest. Of course yes, technically it wasn't a genocide in the direct sense subjugating, enslaving and stealing their stuff rather than extermination were their primary goals.

decentomyous 3y ago
> The Roman empire was almost entirely built on slave labor and exhortation of the territories they subjugated. This is a description of virtually every ancient society in this region. The Romans were simply the most dominant. And as a rule, they were fairer and more tolerant than the entities they replaced. > By that point the Celts weren't as much of a threat as they were 50-100+ years ago. The argument that the Gauls were no longer a threat merely because it had been 40-something years since the last successful invasion of Roman territory doesn't make much sense. Nothing fundamental had changed. The Romans were stronger by then but the territories bordering Gaul were still at risk. Vercingetorix himself attempted an invasion of the Roman province as a response Caesar's invasion. > In any case the Roman senate didn't really consider the war to be necessary in that sense. This is really accepting ancient propaganda at face value. It's more accurate to say that Caesar's opponents in the senate claimed it was unnecessary as a means of attacking him politically. Most of these same Roman senators used the Roman army in much the same way when serving at governors in the provinces.
- qwytw 3y ago
  > This is a description of virtually every ancient society in this region. Ok, I don't know why do I have to specify this but I meant the slave labor if hundreds of thousands (or millions) of foreigners they have subjugated (this was relatively unique in the Mediterranean). > The Romans were simply the most dominant. And as a rule, they were fairer and more tolerant than the entities they replaced. Except this wasn't really true. Certainly not in the Republican period. Extortive taxation, extreme levels of corruption and other issues weren't addressed until the imperial period. e.g. the cities/states rebelling in Asia minor hated the Romans enough to murder every single Italian they could find in the region: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiatic_Vespers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiatic_Vespers > The argument that the Gauls were no longer a threat merely because it had been 40-something years since the last successful invasion of Roman territory doesn't make much sense. I don't agree about 40 years.. Well it's tangential anyway and has little to do with Caesar's motivations. > Most of these same Roman senators used the Roman army in much the same way when serving at governors in the provinces. Maybe but certainly not to a such degree of course. However yes, the main thing that set him apart from all the other ambitious Roman aristocrats was how exceptionally successful he was.