3 ms·

> The Roman empire was almost entirely built on slave labor and exhortation of the territories they subjugated. This is a description of virtually every ancien

> 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.
- decentomyous 3y ago
  "Ok, I don't know why do I have to specify this but I meant the slave labor if hundreds of thousands..." Because they didn't do anything substantively different in this regard? Pointing out that the Romans had slaves as if it somehow differentiated them seems misleading. The number of people living under slavery, or near-slavery, was probably quite similar before and after the Romans took over any given territory. In some cases, less, and other cases more. "Well it's tangential anyway and has little to do with Caesar's motivations." We can't read his mind but it seems very believable that he genuinely wanted to eliminate a threat to Rome, among other things. Most big things like this have more than one motivation. He could have chosen to go east to do his conquering, but he chose Gaul. At one point he refers to the defeat and death of his father-in-law's grandfather, at the hands of the Gallic tribe he was engaged with. There's a good chance he sat at a dinner talking with his father-in-law about this. It wouldn't be surprising if they both agreed that it was time someone do something about the threat they posed.
  - qwytw 3y ago
    > Pointing out that the Romans had slaves as if it somehow differentiated them seems misleading I'm sorry are you being purposefully obtuse here? >Because they didn't do anything substantively different in this regard? Anyway that's tangential and semi-irrelevant to my point. The scale of slavery in Roman Italy was on a completely different level than anywhere else in the Mediterranean or the Hellenic world. As far as we can tell the level of exploitation the Roman aristocracy engaged in didn't really have any parallel in the ancient world (and it didn't benefit anyone but them especially not the lower class Roman citizens in the Italian countryside). > n some cases, less, and other cases more. I would assume it was usually less. Sometimes significantly. In part because of depopulation following the extreme atrocities inflicted by the Romans and because most of the newly captured slaves were transported to Italy. You might have a point though for instance the Romans basically slavery in Carthage which was quite and an achievement by ancient standards... > He could have chosen to go east to do his conquering I don't think he could've chosen that at all considering the political situation in the Roman empire at the time. > It wouldn't be surprising if they both agreed that it was time someone do something about the threat they posed. Everything you're saying is almost purely conjecture. In any case reducing/removing the Gaulic threat to Rome you keep talking about (which again wasn't really an issue on the Italian side of the alps anymore anyway). Anyway the exact justification are hardly relevant when Ceasar's conquest was mainly driven by personal ambition and greed (which doesn't make him special compared to most other Roman, Celtic or Greek warlords he was just extremely effective at it).

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.

decentomyous 3y ago
"Ok, I don't know why do I have to specify this but I meant the slave labor if hundreds of thousands..." Because they didn't do anything substantively different in this regard? Pointing out that the Romans had slaves as if it somehow differentiated them seems misleading. The number of people living under slavery, or near-slavery, was probably quite similar before and after the Romans took over any given territory. In some cases, less, and other cases more. "Well it's tangential anyway and has little to do with Caesar's motivations." We can't read his mind but it seems very believable that he genuinely wanted to eliminate a threat to Rome, among other things. Most big things like this have more than one motivation. He could have chosen to go east to do his conquering, but he chose Gaul. At one point he refers to the defeat and death of his father-in-law's grandfather, at the hands of the Gallic tribe he was engaged with. There's a good chance he sat at a dinner talking with his father-in-law about this. It wouldn't be surprising if they both agreed that it was time someone do something about the threat they posed.
- qwytw 3y ago
  > Pointing out that the Romans had slaves as if it somehow differentiated them seems misleading I'm sorry are you being purposefully obtuse here? >Because they didn't do anything substantively different in this regard? Anyway that's tangential and semi-irrelevant to my point. The scale of slavery in Roman Italy was on a completely different level than anywhere else in the Mediterranean or the Hellenic world. As far as we can tell the level of exploitation the Roman aristocracy engaged in didn't really have any parallel in the ancient world (and it didn't benefit anyone but them especially not the lower class Roman citizens in the Italian countryside). > n some cases, less, and other cases more. I would assume it was usually less. Sometimes significantly. In part because of depopulation following the extreme atrocities inflicted by the Romans and because most of the newly captured slaves were transported to Italy. You might have a point though for instance the Romans basically slavery in Carthage which was quite and an achievement by ancient standards... > He could have chosen to go east to do his conquering I don't think he could've chosen that at all considering the political situation in the Roman empire at the time. > It wouldn't be surprising if they both agreed that it was time someone do something about the threat they posed. Everything you're saying is almost purely conjecture. In any case reducing/removing the Gaulic threat to Rome you keep talking about (which again wasn't really an issue on the Italian side of the alps anymore anyway). Anyway the exact justification are hardly relevant when Ceasar's conquest was mainly driven by personal ambition and greed (which doesn't make him special compared to most other Roman, Celtic or Greek warlords he was just extremely effective at it).