3 ms·

"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 differen

"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).
- decentomyous 3y ago
  "I don't think he could've chosen that at all considering the political situation in the Roman empire at the time." You're mixing up the timeline. He chose Gaul when him and two dudes controlled the entire Roman empire. One of those dudes went East and died fighting there. "Everything you're saying is almost purely conjecture" Almost all historical analysis like this is conjecture. Some of it is just well reasoned and others is not. It's a fact that he cited my reason in his commentaries and so is who is father-in-law is. He was related, through his wife, to someone that the Gauls killed in recent history. Anyway, you're not really adding any information here and you're resorting to personal attacks, so I'm done here. Later!

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).

decentomyous 3y ago
"I don't think he could've chosen that at all considering the political situation in the Roman empire at the time." You're mixing up the timeline. He chose Gaul when him and two dudes controlled the entire Roman empire. One of those dudes went East and died fighting there. "Everything you're saying is almost purely conjecture" Almost all historical analysis like this is conjecture. Some of it is just well reasoned and others is not. It's a fact that he cited my reason in his commentaries and so is who is father-in-law is. He was related, through his wife, to someone that the Gauls killed in recent history. Anyway, you're not really adding any information here and you're resorting to personal attacks, so I'm done here. Later!